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 1989–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rotenberg v. Richardsgreen1 sentence2021See Rotenberg , 899 P.2d at 368 ; see also Interbank Invs., L.L.C. v. Vail Valley Consol. | 1 | 1 |
Town of Alma v. AZCO Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2012See AZCO Construction, 10 P.3d at 1262 (in contrast to tort law, which imposes duties "by law without regard to any agreement or contract," contract law "is intended to en-foree the expectancy interests created by the parties' promises so that they can allocate risks and costs during their bargaining"). | 1 | 1 |
Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hallgreen1 sentence1989See Trinity, 690 P.2d at 231 (rejecting policy definition of “pedestrian” as inconsistent with the Act). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles A. Ries, III v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, A/K/A Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation
green
1 sentence2002Ultimately, we agree with the rationale of the Third Cireuit, which concluded that "[elv-idence of an OSHA violation, in and of itself, does not 'affect' liability; it is the inferences that the trier of fact draws from the evidence that 'affect' liability." Ries, 960 F.2d at 1162 n. 5. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio
green
1 sentence1992Relying on Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258 (Colo.1985), it argues that South Park failed to present the requisite “objective” testimony as to the industry standard of care in handling insurance claims. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.