5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lyons Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dire's Lock & Key Co.green2 sentences2021See Lyons Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n v. Dire ’ s Lock & 5 Key Co. , 885 P.2d 345, 348 (Colo. App. 1994) (“Th e doctrine of judicial estoppel has been applied in Colorado to preclud e a party, as a matter of law, from adopting a legal position which conflict s with an earlier positio n taken in the same or related litigat ion.”). ¶ 12 We review the magistrate ’ s and district court ’ s application of law, including the probate code, de novo. 1997See Lyons Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Dire’s Lock & Key Co., 885 P.2d 345 (Colo.App.1994). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Mb-M.green1 sentence2021In re Parental Responsibilities of M.B.- M. , 252 P.3d 506, 509 (Colo. App. 2011) (“Because this appeal turns on the interpretation of the Colorado Rules for Magistrates and the Colorado Rules of Civil Pr ocedure and their application to orders entered by the magistrate and the district court, our re view is de novo.”) ; In re Estate of Reed , 201 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶ 13 Statutory interpretation is also a question of law that we review de novo. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Reedgreen1 sentence2021In re Parental Responsibilities of M.B.- M. , 252 P.3d 506, 509 (Colo. App. 2011) (“Because this appeal turns on the interpretation of the Colorado Rules for Magistrates and the Colorado Rules of Civil Pr ocedure and their application to orders entered by the magistrate and the district court, our re view is de novo.”) ; In re Estate of Reed , 201 P.3d 1264, 1267 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶ 13 Statutory interpretation is also a question of law that we review de novo. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Burford v. Burfordgreen1 sentence2008The judicial estoppel doctrine requires "parties to maintain a consistency of positions in the proceedings, assuring promotion of truth and preventing the parties from deliberately shifting positions to suit the exigencies of the moment." Estate of Burford v. Burford, 935 P.2d 943, 947 (Colo. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoudgreen2 sentences1994Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503 , 261 P. 874 (1927); see also Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoud, 77 Colo. 504 , 238 P. 64 (1925); In re Kessel, 108 B.R. 281 (D.Colo.1989). 1994Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503 , 261 P. 874 (1927); see also Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoud, 77 Colo. 504 , 238 P. 64 (1925); In re Kessel, 108 B.R. 281 (D.Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Colorado National Bank of Denvergreen1 sentence1994See Federal Land Bank v. Colorado National Bank, 786 P.2d 514 (Colo.App.1989) (trial court resolution of issue binding unless lacking in evidentiary support). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2022People v. Johnson, 2020 COA 124, ¶ 12 , aff’d, 2021 CO 79 . ¶ 28 Further, we are unpersuaded by Kinslow’s argument that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes Mohammadi from taking a position contrary to Roske. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Custom Homes, LLC v. Westover
green
1 sentence2022“Judicial estoppel is a narrow doctrine that precludes a party from taking a position in a proceeding that is totally inconsistent with a position the party took earlier in the same or related proceeding in an intentional effort to mislead the 14 court.” Tuscany Custom Homes, LLC v. Westover, 2020 COA 178, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Peters v. Peters
green
2 sentences1994Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503 , 261 P. 874 (1927); see also Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoud, 77 Colo. 504 , 238 P. 64 (1925); In re Kessel, 108 B.R. 281 (D.Colo.1989). 1994Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503 , 261 P. 874 (1927); see also Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoud, 77 Colo. 504 , 238 P. 64 (1925); In re Kessel, 108 B.R. 281 (D.Colo.1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kessel v. Guaranty Bank & Trust (In Re Kessel)
green
1 sentence1994Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503 , 261 P. 874 (1927); see also Hinderlider v. Town of Berthoud, 77 Colo. 504 , 238 P. 64 (1925); In re Kessel, 108 B.R. 281 (D.Colo.1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.