Farmers motion (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

Farmers motion in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Van Wykgreen
colo · 2001 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025If it wished to consider materials outside the complaint, it had to convert Farmers’ motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and provide the parties with a “reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by C.R.C.P. 56.” C.R.C.P. 12(b); see Van Wyk, 27 P.3d at 386 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Ferrellgas, Inc. v. Yeiser green
colo · 2011
1 sentence

2019Id. ¶ 38 The plaintiff sued Ferrellgas and argued that the collateral source rule should bar evidence of Farmers’s payment to her and preclude a post-verdict setoff from any damages awarded against Ferrellgas.

12019–2019
International Service Insurance v. Ross green
colo · 1969
2 sentences

2015Co. v. Ross, 169 Colo. 451 , 462, 457 P.2d 917 , 923 (1969))); see also Stephen A. Hess, 5A Colorado Practice: Handbook on Civil Litigation § 1.5 (2014) ("If no defendant is a resident, the plaintiff may choose any county to name as the place of venue."). | 11 20 However, when the trial court granted Farmers' motion for a change of venue in Ewald's action, it deemed "Plaintiffs' designated venue of Boulder County" to be "improper under- C.RC.P. 98(c)" It reached this conclusion after quoting only a portion of Rule 98(c)(1), which omitted the key phrase "or in the county designated in the compl

2015Co. v. Ross, 169 Colo. 451 , 462, 457 P.2d 917 , 923 (1969))); see also Stephen A. Hess, 5A Colorado Practice: Handbook on Civil Litigation § 1.5 (2014) ("If no defendant is a resident, the plaintiff may choose any county to name as the place of venue."). | 11 20 However, when the trial court granted Farmers' motion for a change of venue in Ewald's action, it deemed "Plaintiffs' designated venue of Boulder County" to be "improper under- C.RC.P. 98(c)" It reached this conclusion after quoting only a portion of Rule 98(c)(1), which omitted the key phrase "or in the county designated in the compl

12015–2015
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Springle green
coloctapp · 1993
1 sentence

1995See § 13-80-101(l)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A); State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Springle, supra (three-year limitation period for cause of action arising out of a contract). *883 Finally, in the trial court, Farmers asserted that American should be estopped from claiming the statute of limitation as a defense because Farmers had acted honorably and in good faith in undertaking Barton’s defense.

11995–1995
Williams v. Farmers Insurance Group, Inc. green
coloctapp · 1985
2 sentences

1991That ruling was overturned by the court of appeals in Williams v. Farmers Insurance Group, Inc., 720 P.2d 598 (Colo.App.1985), which remanded the case with instructions that a different judge review Farmers’ post-trial motions. 1 A different trial court reinstated the jury verdicts, imposed interest, and awarded costs and attorney fees against the defendant insurers.

1991That ruling was overturned by the court of appeals in Williams v. Farmers Insurance Group, Inc., 720 P.2d 598 (Colo.App.1985), which remanded the case with instructions that a different judge review Farmers' post-trial motions. [1] A different trial court reinstated the jury verdicts, imposed interest, and awarded costs and attorney fees against the defendant insurers.

11991–1991

Where else courts name it

TX 17 (1984–2025) CA 16 (1984–2026) IL 14 (1993–2023) OR 10 (2001–2025) OH 7 (2006–2026) NM 5 (1978–2023) CO 5 (1991–2025) OK 4 (1996–2018) MT 4 (2004–2022) MI 4 (1994–2025) WI 3 (2008–2009) NE 3 (1991–2024) WA 3 (1997–2013) UT 2 (1980–2016) IN 2 (1995–1999) ID 2 (1984–2008) AZ 2 (2009–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check