5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Simmsgreen2 sentences2019See Price, 915 8 P.2d at 1280; People v. Simms, 185 Colo. 214, 218 , 523 P.2d 463, 465 (1974). ¶ 22 Moreover, the Supplement, which summarized Huggins’s postconviction arguments, made no reference to an alleged violation of his due process rights as a consequence of the postconviction court’s inaction on the Crim. 2019See Price, 915 8 P.2d at 1280; People v. Simms, 185 Colo. 214, 218 , 523 P.2d 463, 465 (1974). ¶ 22 Moreover, the Supplement, which summarized Huggins’s postconviction arguments, made no reference to an alleged violation of his due process rights as a consequence of the postconviction court’s inaction on the Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Smoots
green
1 sentence2014Cf. People v. Smoots, 2013 COA 152, ¶ 20 , — P.3d --— (cert. granted in part on other grounds June 30, 2014) (noting that one division of the Colorado Court of Appeals is not obligated to follow the precedent established by another division but that the latter division gives the prior decision considerable deference). €13 We perceive our task as deciding cases on the merits when it is appropriate to do so. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commercial Credit Company v. Childs
green
2 sentences1970Commercial Credit Co. v. Childs, 199 Ark. 1073 , 137 S.W.2d 260 . 1970Commercial Credit Co. v. Childs, 199 Ark. 1073 , 137 S.W.2d 260 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Hunt v. . Hunt
green
1 sentence1932Infallibility of judgment is not the test of jurisdiction. # * jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power lawfully conferred to deal with the general subject involved in the action.” Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217, 228-230 , 28 Am. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Swift v. Smith
green
1 sentence1896The case of Swift v. Smith, 102 U. S. 442 , involved facts almost identical with this case, and that court, speaking upon the question of notice, said: “ The record assured them that Jackson was the owner of the lots when the release to Dji-er was made, and that Dyer-had no interest in the trust deed to be released. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.