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 2 courts 2008–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardygreen1 sentence2008A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardy, 93 P.3d 598, 608 (Colo.App.2004) ("[t]he remedies and procedures in a criminal case are substantially more stringent than those in a civil case," and the liberty interest at stake creates an "incentive to fully litigate and defend"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties, LLC
green
2 sentences2016However, the court noted that because the first and second factors weighed against granting relief, it could not “conclude that the district court’s decision refusing to vacate the judgment of dismissal was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and, thus, an abuse of discretion.” Id. at ¶ 36. ¶16 Sebastian petitioned this court to review the issue of whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that he had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 II. ¶17 Three factors guide a trial court’s consideration of a motion to set aside a default judgment for “excusable neg 2016However, the court noted that because the first and second factors weighed against granting relief, it could not “conclude that the district court’s decision refusing to vacate the judgment of dismissal was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and, thus, an abuse of discretion.” Id. at ¶ 36. ¶16 Sebastian petitioned this court to review the issue of whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that he had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 II. ¶17 Three factors guide a trial court’s consideration of a motion to set aside a default judgment for “excusable neg | 4 | 2016–2016 |
Buckmiller v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016However, the court noted that because the first and second factors weighed against granting relief, it could not “conclude that the district court’s decision refusing to vacate the judgment of dismissal was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and, thus, an abuse of discretion.” Id. at ¶ 36. ¶16 Sebastian petitioned this court to review the issue of whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that he had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 II. ¶17 Three factors guide a trial court’s consideration of a motion to set aside a default judgment for “excusable neg 2016However, the court noted that because the first and second factors weighed against granting relief, it could not “conclude that the district court’s decision refusing to vacate the judgment of dismissal was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and, thus, an abuse of discretion.” Id. at ¶ 36. ¶16 Sebastian petitioned this court to review the issue of whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that he had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.3 II. ¶17 Three factors guide a trial court’s consideration of a motion to set aside a default judgment for “excusable neg | 4 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.