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 1981–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Corsentino v. Cordovagreen1 sentence2014IIL - Standard of Review 110 In most cases, "immunity determinations raised pursuant to a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) motion are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard because they are essentially factual." Corsentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082, 1087 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hickerson v. Vessels
green
1 sentence2025“Indeed, the fundamental purpose of the doctrine is not to create three mutually exclusive departments of government, but to prevent 13 one department from exercising power that is essential to another department’s exercise of its constitutionally defined functions.” Dee Enters., 89 P.3d at 433 . ¶ 30 “Determining whether a court has intruded into the sphere of the Executive Branch requires a case-by-case evaluation,” McDonnell, 864 P.2d at 567 , and we conduct such a review de novo, Hickerson v. Vessels, 2014 CO 2, ¶ 10 . ¶ 31 We do not perceive an order restricting mother’s ability to grieve | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McDonnell v. Juvenile Court
green
1 sentence2025“Indeed, the fundamental purpose of the doctrine is not to create three mutually exclusive departments of government, but to prevent 13 one department from exercising power that is essential to another department’s exercise of its constitutionally defined functions.” Dee Enters., 89 P.3d at 433 . ¶ 30 “Determining whether a court has intruded into the sphere of the Executive Branch requires a case-by-case evaluation,” McDonnell, 864 P.2d at 567 , and we conduct such a review de novo, Hickerson v. Vessels, 2014 CO 2, ¶ 10 . ¶ 31 We do not perceive an order restricting mother’s ability to grieve | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Dee Enterprises v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
green
1 sentence2025“Indeed, the fundamental purpose of the doctrine is not to create three mutually exclusive departments of government, but to prevent 13 one department from exercising power that is essential to another department’s exercise of its constitutionally defined functions.” Dee Enters., 89 P.3d at 433 . ¶ 30 “Determining whether a court has intruded into the sphere of the Executive Branch requires a case-by-case evaluation,” McDonnell, 864 P.2d at 567 , and we conduct such a review de novo, Hickerson v. Vessels, 2014 CO 2, ¶ 10 . ¶ 31 We do not perceive an order restricting mother’s ability to grieve | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Young ex rel. Bucy v. Jefferson County Sheriff
green
1 sentence2023Additionally, we have not resolved whether corporations are entitled to immunity under the Professions Act, the Nurse Practice Act, or the Mandatory Reporter statute, and early resolution of this issue “furthers judicial efficiency . . . [and] honors the fundamental purpose of immunity.” Id. at ¶ 9, 318 P.3d at 460 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City & County of Denver v. Board of Assessment Appeals
green
1 sentence2001A fundamental purpose of the rule is to implement Article X by achieving "the constitutional mandate of uniformity by assuring horizontal equity between comparable parcels of property." Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Atchison v. City of Englewood
green
2 sentences1981Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970); Barry v. Newton, supra; Restatement of Property Div. IV, Part 1, Introductory Note (1944). 1981Atchison v. City of Englewood, 170 Colo. 295 , 463 P.2d 297 (1970); Barry v. Newton, supra; Restatement of Property Div. IV, Part 1, Introductory Note (1944). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.