manifest error in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1894–2018 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hice v. Lottgreen coloctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See, e.g., Hice v. Lott, 223 P.3d 139, 149 (Colo. App. 2009); Bowlen v. FDIC, 815 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Colo. App. 1991). ¶37 Moreover, Fox has not explained why she could not have raised these arguments before the district court granted defendants’ motion to compel the production of the recording. 2018See, e.g. , Hice v. Lott , 223 P.3d 139 , 149 (Colo. App. 2009) ; Bowlen v. FDIC , 815 P.2d 1013 , 1015 (Colo. App. 1991). ¶ 37 Moreover, Fox has not explained why she could not have raised these arguments before the district court granted defendants' motion to compel the production of the recording.	1	1
Bowlen v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.green coloctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See, e.g., Hice v. Lott, 223 P.3d 139, 149 (Colo. App. 2009); Bowlen v. FDIC, 815 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Colo. App. 1991). ¶37 Moreover, Fox has not explained why she could not have raised these arguments before the district court granted defendants’ motion to compel the production of the recording. 2018See, e.g. , Hice v. Lott , 223 P.3d 139 , 149 (Colo. App. 2009) ; Bowlen v. FDIC , 815 P.2d 1013 , 1015 (Colo. App. 1991). ¶ 37 Moreover, Fox has not explained why she could not have raised these arguments before the district court granted defendants' motion to compel the production of the recording.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
People Ex Rel. Public Utilities Commission v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. green colo · 1952 2 sentences 1955This especially is true where to adhere to the rule and blindly follow precedent would be more harmful to the public at large than to correct a manifest error and establish a sound principle.” Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City and County of Denver, 125 Colo. 167 , 243 P. (2d) 397 . 1955This especially is true where to adhere to the rule and blindly follow precedent would be more harmful to the public at large than to correct a manifest error and establish a sound principle.” Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City and County of Denver, 125 Colo. 167 , 243 P. (2d) 397 .	1	1955–1955
People ex rel. Attorney General v. Cassiday green · 1911 2 sentences 1952In People ex rel. v. Cassiday, 50 Colo. 503 , 117 P. 357 , 365, in discussing the rule of stare decisis we said: "We are not unmindful of the importance of this valuable and salutary principle, recognized in every land whose jurisprudence, like our own, rests largely upon precedent. 1952In People ex rel. v. Cassiday, 50 Colo. 503 , 117 Pac. 357 , in discussing the rule of stare decisis we said: “We are not unmindful of the importance of this valuable and salutary principle, recognized in every land whose jurisprudence, like our own, rests largely upon precedent.	1	1952–1952
Townsend v. Petersen neutral · 1889 1 sentence 1908By statute and decisions of this court the fact of a deed being a mortgage in effect may be proved by oral testimony. —Code, section 261; Townsend v. Peterson, 12 Colo. 491 ; Armor v. Spalding, 14 Colo. 302 ; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80; Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Colo. 153 ; Butsch v. Smith, 40 Colo. 64 .	1	1908–1908
Armor v. Spalding neutral colo · 1890 1 sentence 1908By statute and decisions of this court the fact of a deed being a mortgage in effect may be proved by oral testimony. —Code, section 261; Townsend v. Peterson, 12 Colo. 491 ; Armor v. Spalding, 14 Colo. 302 ; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80; Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Colo. 153 ; Butsch v. Smith, 40 Colo. 64 .	1	1908–1908
Perot v. Cooper neutral colo · 1891 1 sentence 1908By statute and decisions of this court the fact of a deed being a mortgage in effect may be proved by oral testimony. —Code, section 261; Townsend v. Peterson, 12 Colo. 491 ; Armor v. Spalding, 14 Colo. 302 ; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80; Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Colo. 153 ; Butsch v. Smith, 40 Colo. 64 .	1	1908–1908
Davis v. Hopkins neutral colo · 1893 1 sentence 1908By statute and decisions of this court the fact of a deed being a mortgage in effect may be proved by oral testimony. —Code, section 261; Townsend v. Peterson, 12 Colo. 491 ; Armor v. Spalding, 14 Colo. 302 ; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80; Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Colo. 153 ; Butsch v. Smith, 40 Colo. 64 .	1	1908–1908
Butsch v. Smith neutral colo · 1907 1 sentence 1908By statute and decisions of this court the fact of a deed being a mortgage in effect may be proved by oral testimony. —Code, section 261; Townsend v. Peterson, 12 Colo. 491 ; Armor v. Spalding, 14 Colo. 302 ; Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo. 80; Davis v. Hopkins, 18 Colo. 153 ; Butsch v. Smith, 40 Colo. 64 .	1	1908–1908
Sloan v. Strickler neutral colo · 1888 1 sentence 1894Moreover, even where the attack is direct upon appeal or writ of error “ Public policy and common justice require that judgments of courts of record of long standing, and upon the faith of which property rights have been acquired, should not be disturbed, except for the most manifest error.” Sloan v. Strick ler, 12 Colo. 179 .	1	1894–1894

Where else courts name it

LA 5746 (1912–2026) WA 475 (1920–2026) IL 309 (1886–2026) MS 291 (1914–2026) VA 42 (1885–2026) RI 37 (1974–2020) WI 37 (1955–2026) PA 33 (1893–2026) SC 30 (1946–2025) ME 27 (1953–2019) NM 20 (1975–2025) FL 15 (1974–2024) AL 14 (1850–2002) AR 13 (1961–2025) KY 13 (1863–2024) MT 12 (1946–2024) NY 12 (1906–2009) OH 9 (1937–2020) KS 8 (1910–1994) CA 7 (1928–1999) DC 7 (1902–2017) OK 7 (1923–2015) NJ 6 (1954–2021) MO 6 (1894–1992) TX 6 (1871–2006) CO 5 (1894–2018) IA 4 (1908–1991) GA 4 (1894–2025) UT 4 (1988–2002) MA 4 (1942–2013) DE 3 (2019–2024) TN 3 (1967–2017) WY 3 (2021–2023) VI 3 (1999–2013) OR 3 (1896–2017) NV 2 (1930–2020) IN 2 (1970–2017) PR 2 (1912–1917) MD 2 (2010–2016) AZ 2 (2001–2006) VT 2 (2008–2014) MI 2 (1893–1905)

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