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 1984–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Goldengreen1 sentence2025However, should those challenges arise on remand, we note that a “movant must . . . establish a reasonable proration of attorney fees incurred relative to the defense of a frivolous or groundless claim.” Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119, 126 (Colo. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Lobato v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2005See Lobato v. Taylor, 13 P.3d 821 (Colo.App.2000)(fact that court does not accept an argument does not make the argument frivolous), rev’d on other grounds, 70 P.3d 1152 (Colo.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Fountain v. Mojogreen1 sentence2005See Fountain v. Mojo, 687 P.2d 496, 501 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Lobato v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2005See Lobato v. Taylor, 13 P.3d 821 (Colo.App.2000)(fact that court does not accept an argument does not make the argument frivolous), rev’d on other grounds, 70 P.3d 1152 (Colo.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. DeBruinegreen1 sentence1984See Moore v. DeBruine, supra. Having correctly concluded that the libel and slander claim of plaintiff was frivolous, an evidentiary hearing is required to develop facts sufficient for the trial court to exercise its discretion in accordance with § 13-17-102, C.R.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. State, Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence1986Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, supra; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. State, 675 P.2d 318 (Colo.App.1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs
green
1 sentence1986Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, supra; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. State, 675 P.2d 318 (Colo.App.1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.