Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1946–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooley v. Eskridgegreen2 sentences1995See Cooley v. Eskridge, 125 Colo. 102, 112 , 241 P.2d 851, 856 (1952) (stating authority to do an unlawful act will not be implied unless it is warranted from the nature of the employment itself) (citations omitted); Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 565 N.E.2d 584, 587 (1991) (giving the example that a bar owner employing a bouncer may be vicariously liable to a patron if the bouncer injures the patron while removing him from the premises). 1995See Cooley v. Eskridge, 125 Colo. 102, 112 , 241 P.2d 851, 856 (1952) (stating authority to do an unlawful act will not be implied unless it is warranted from the nature of the employment itself) (citations omitted); Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 565 N.E.2d 584, 587 (1991) (giving the example that a bar owner employing a bouncer may be vicariously liable to a patron if the bouncer injures the patron while removing him from the premises). | 2 | 2 |
Byrd v. Fabergreen2 sentences1995See Cooley v. Eskridge, 125 Colo. 102, 112 , 241 P.2d 851, 856 (1952) (stating authority to do an unlawful act will not be implied unless it is warranted from the nature of the employment itself) (citations omitted); Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 565 N.E.2d 584, 587 (1991) (giving the example that a bar owner employing a bouncer may be vicariously liable to a patron if the bouncer injures the patron while removing him from the premises). 1995See Cooley v. Eskridge, 125 Colo. 102, 112 , 241 P.2d 851, 856 (1952) (stating authority to do an unlawful act will not be implied unless it is warranted from the nature of the employment itself) (citations omitted); Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56 , 565 N.E.2d 584, 587 (1991) (giving the example that a bar owner employing a bouncer may be vicariously liable to a patron if the bouncer injures the patron while removing him from the premises). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bagbygreen1 sentence2019See People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059, 1062 (Colo. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Spotogreen1 sentence2013See Spoto, 795 P.2d at 1319 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coates v. People
green
2 sentences1946Thus, correctly, the court stated the announced purpose of the district attorney in offering the questioned exhibit, and proceeding thereon in enlightened perception of the rule clearly stated in the cases cited, which precludes such adminission, the court opinion concludes that there are “certain well recognized exceptions to the general rule,” and adds, “that the present case falls within the exception and that, were it - otherwise, the rule is devoid of logical support and the foregoing authorities upholding it should be overruled.” At this point the court cites Coates v. People, 106 Colo. 1946Thus, correctly, the court stated the announced purpose of the district attorney in offering the questioned exhibit, and proceeding thereon in enlightened perception of the rule clearly stated in the cases cited, which precludes such adminission, the court opinion concludes that there are “certain well recognized exceptions to the general rule,” and adds, “that the present case falls within the exception and that, were it - otherwise, the rule is devoid of logical support and the foregoing authorities upholding it should be overruled.” At this point the court cites Coates v. People, 106 Colo. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.