5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vanderpool v. Loftnessgreen1 sentence2025“The goal of the doctrine is to promote judicial economy by barring a claim litigated in a prior proceeding from being litigated again in a second proceeding.” Foster, ¶ 12. ¶ 13 Like claim preclusion, issue preclusion “is designed to ‘relieve parties of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and promote reliance on the judicial system by preventing inconsistent decisions.’” Vanderpool v. Loftness, 2012 COA 115, ¶ 11 (quoting Reynolds v. Cotten, 2012 CO 27, ¶ 9 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sunny Acres Villa, Inc. v. Coopergreen1 sentence2025Sunny Acres Villa, Inc. v. Cooper, 25 P.3d 44, 47 (Colo. 2001) (issue preclusion); Meridian Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Beninegreen1 sentence2017See Cruz v. Benine, 984 P.2d 1173, 1176 (Colo.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. Plock
green
1 sentence2026The goal of the doctrine is to promote judicial economy by barring a claim litigated in a prior proceeding from being litigated again in a second proceeding.” Foster v. Plock, 2017 CO 39, ¶ 12 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Foster v. Plock
green
2 sentences2025The goal of the doctrine is to promote judicial economy by barring a claim litigated in a prior proceeding from being litigated again in a second proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 12, 394 P.3d at 1122 . ¶ 43 In contrast, issue preclusion “prevents the [relitigation] of discrete issues, rather than causes of action.” Id. at ¶ 13, 394 P.3d at 1123 . 2025The goal of the doctrine is to promote judicial economy by barring a claim litigated in a prior proceeding from being litigated again in a second proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 12, 394 P.3d at 1122 . ¶ 43 In contrast, issue preclusion “prevents the [relitigation] of discrete issues, rather than causes of action.” Id. at ¶ 13, 394 P.3d at 1123 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Reynolds v. Cotten
green
1 sentence2025“The goal of the doctrine is to promote judicial economy by barring a claim litigated in a prior proceeding from being litigated again in a second proceeding.” Foster, ¶ 12. ¶ 13 Like claim preclusion, issue preclusion “is designed to ‘relieve parties of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and promote reliance on the judicial system by preventing inconsistent decisions.’” Vanderpool v. Loftness, 2012 COA 115, ¶ 11 (quoting Reynolds v. Cotten, 2012 CO 27, ¶ 9 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.