faulty instruction (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

faulty instruction in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Kinard v. Coats Company, Inc.green
coloctapp · 1976 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2009–2013
2 sentences

2013Kinard v. Coats Co., 37 Colo.App. 555, 558 , 553 P.2d 835, 838 (1976). 174 Further, we. conclude that this case does not present the exceptional cireumstances that would justify the application of the plain error doctrine in a civil case. "[Pllain error review of instructional issues is restricted to unusual or special cases, and, even then, reversal occurs only when necessary to avert unequivocal and manifest Justice." Harris Grp., 209 P.3d at 1195. ‘ V. - The Insurance Company Has Withdrawn Its Argument that Sections 10-83-1115 and -1116 Do Not Apply 'to Liability Policies ‘ 175 Interpreting

2013Kinard v. Coats Co., 37 Colo.App. 555, 558 , 553 P.2d 835, 838 (1976). 174 Further, we. conclude that this case does not present the exceptional cireumstances that would justify the application of the plain error doctrine in a civil case. "[Pllain error review of instructional issues is restricted to unusual or special cases, and, even then, reversal occurs only when necessary to avert unequivocal and manifest Justice." Harris Grp., 209 P.3d at 1195. ‘ V. - The Insurance Company Has Withdrawn Its Argument that Sections 10-83-1115 and -1116 Do Not Apply 'to Liability Policies ‘ 175 Interpreting

12
Harris Group, Inc. v. Robinsongreen
coloctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Kinard v. Coats Co., 37 Colo.App. 555, 558 , 553 P.2d 835, 838 (1976). 174 Further, we. conclude that this case does not present the exceptional cireumstances that would justify the application of the plain error doctrine in a civil case. "[Pllain error review of instructional issues is restricted to unusual or special cases, and, even then, reversal occurs only when necessary to avert unequivocal and manifest Justice." Harris Grp., 209 P.3d at 1195. ‘ V. - The Insurance Company Has Withdrawn Its Argument that Sections 10-83-1115 and -1116 Do Not Apply 'to Liability Policies ‘ 175 Interpreting

11
People v. Roygreen
coloctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999To constitute plain error, a faulty instruction must have “so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial that it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the verdict.” People v. Roy, 948 P.2d 99, 102 (Colo.App.1997).

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Hoggard green
coloctapp · 2017
1 sentence

2021We conclude that the reliability of the judgment of conviction is in serious doubt and determine that the error is plain. ¶ 30 We acknowledge the People’s argument that under People v. Hoggard, 2017 COA 88 , aff’d on other grounds, 2020 CO 54 , no reversal is required where the faulty instruction did not prejudice the defendant.

12021–2021
v. People green
colo · 2020
1 sentence

2021We conclude that the reliability of the judgment of conviction is in serious doubt and determine that the error is plain. ¶ 30 We acknowledge the People’s argument that under People v. Hoggard, 2017 COA 88 , aff’d on other grounds, 2020 CO 54 , no reversal is required where the faulty instruction did not prejudice the defendant.

12021–2021
People v. Garcia green
colo · 2001
1 sentence

2005Peo *131 ple v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 340 (Colo.2001).

12005–2005

Where else courts name it

IL 29 (1931–2025) FL 25 (1903–2018) MO 20 (1976–2022) CA 11 (1994–2024) PA 10 (1989–2020) SD 10 (1996–2014) WA 8 (2002–2012) OH 6 (1993–2020) MI 5 (2002–2022) CO 5 (1999–2021) TX 5 (1989–2017) IN 5 (1885–2019) LA 5 (1979–2005) AZ 4 (2001–2023) UT 4 (1992–2019) IA 3 (2012–2021) GA 3 (2000–2011) KY 3 (1944–2024) MA 3 (1974–2001) VT 2 (1999–2011) MD 2 (1976–1999) ID 2 (1986–2008) KS 2 (1997–2024) WY 2 (1989–1990) SC 2 (1962–1967) MN 2 (1984–2015) OK 2 (1936–2018)

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