jury to consider claim (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

jury to consider claim in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Clements v. Daviesgreen
coloctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See Clements, 217 P.3d at 916 . ¶ 27 Finally, the relevant portions of Avery’s opening brief on this issue do not contain a single citation to the record or to authority supporting his argument that the district court reversibly erred.

11
People v. Dovergreen
colo · 1990 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990See People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo.1990).

1990See People v. Dover, 790 P.2d 834 (Colo.1990).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Columbia Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Carpenter green
coloctapp · 1974
1 sentence

2008Accordingly, because Ary adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence, we conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to consider that presumption together with other evidence in the case and that the court did not abuse its discretion in sending the case to the "fact finder free from the presumption." Columbia, 33 Colo.App. at 367, 521 P.2d at 1302 .

12008–2008
Decker v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Colorado, Inc. green
coloctapp · 1995
1 sentence

1997Decker, 903 P.2d at 1156-57 .

11997–1997
Smith v. Home Light and Power Co. green
colo · 1987
1 sentence

1992However, because of the dangerous nature of electric power lines, and the conceded fact that administrative safety standards prescribe only minimum requirements and must be considered with the *255 particular circumstances and conduct consistent with the state of the art, see Smith v. Home Light & Power, supra, the jury was not fully and adequately instructed by virtue of Instruction No. 20 alone.

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1989–2023) AL 17 (1983–2016) WA 10 (2002–2013) GA 9 (1926–2023) TN 7 (1998–2024) MD 5 (1962–2016) IL 5 (1974–2021) CO 5 (1990–2025) OH 4 (2005–2020) IN 4 (1979–1989) MA 4 (1976–2014) NY 4 (1980–2006) UT 3 (2013–2020) TX 3 (1983–2021) NC 3 (1963–1995) DC 2 (1987–2011) OR 2 (1988–1990) PA 2 (1993–1995) MO 2 (1993–1994) RI 2 (1999–2011) AK 2 (1981–2012) WV 2 (2017–2017) MI 2 (2006–2012) WI 2 (1980–2021)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check