5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1988–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
Furer v. Allied Steel Co.green2 sentences1997See Furer v. Allied Steel Co., 174 Colo. 171 , 483 P.2d 212 (1971). 1997See Furer v. Allied Steel Co., 174 Colo. 171 , 483 P.2d 212 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. John W. Downing
green
1 sentence1998It then subjected the expert’s testimony to an analysis similar to the reliability inquiry set forth in United States v. Downing, supra. The court found there was a high degree of acceptance in the scientific community for the expert’s testimony, the principles being discussed were not novel, and there was extensive literature on the subject. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Lindsey
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Abdelsamed v. New York Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1994Based upon our review of the record, we conclude this was error.” Abdelsamed v. New York Life, 857 P.2d at 425 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Hampton
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 134 , 528 P.2d at 1313 . 1988Id. at 134 , 528 P.2d at 1313 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.