margin error (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

margin error in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2010 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Creech v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV., MOTOR VEHICLE DIV.green
colo · 1976 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985See Creech v. Department of Revenue, 190 Colo. 174 , 544 P.2d 633 (1976); State v. Keller, 36 Wash.App. 110 , 672 P.2d 412 (1983).

1985See Creech v. Department of Revenue, 190 Colo. 174 , 544 P.2d 633 (1976); State v. Keller, 36 Wash.App. 110 , 672 P.2d 412 (1983).

22
Speiser v. Randallgreen
scotus · 1958 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990As we said in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-26 [ 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1341-42 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 ] (1958): “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account.

1990As we said in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-26 [ 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1341-42 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 ] (1958): “There is always in litigation a margin of error, representing error in factfinding, which both parties must take into account.

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
State v. Keller green
washctapp · 1983
2 sentences

1985See Creech v. Department of Revenue, 190 Colo. 174 , 544 P.2d 633 (1976); State v. Keller, 36 Wash.App. 110 , 672 P.2d 412 (1983).

1985See Creech v. Department of Revenue, 190 Colo. 174 , 544 P.2d 633 (1976); State v. Keller, 36 Wash.App. 110 , 672 P.2d 412 (1983).

21985–1985
Wiesner v. Huber green
coloctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2010In addition, the division said the "presumption of accuracy is likely intended as a margin of error for the BAC requiring revocation." Id. at 976 .

2010It reasoned the "0.096 BAC presumption of accuracy is a reasonable margin of error for the 0.08 BAC revocation finding," but "because 0.096 is considerably lower than 0. 17, the presumption of accuracy does not represent a margin of error for the 'persistent drunk driver' finding." Id.

12010–2010
Alderman v. United States green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

1982Unavoidably, this is a matter of judgment, but in our view the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court to identify those records which might have contributed to the Government's case." 394 U.S. at 182 , 89 S.Ct. at 971 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 192 .

1982Unavoidably, this is a matter of judgment, but in our view the task is too complex, and the margin for error too great, to rely wholly on the in camera judgment of the trial court to identify those records which might have contributed to the Government's case." 394 U.S. at 182 , 89 S.Ct. at 971 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 192 .

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

CA 35 (1972–2026) IL 18 (1927–2025) TX 17 (1969–2024) NY 14 (1968–2018) OH 14 (1999–2026) MD 13 (1979–2023) ID 11 (2004–2019) LA 11 (1977–2015) AZ 9 (1978–2017) AK 9 (1979–2020) NJ 9 (1961–2011) IA 8 (1986–2018) HI 8 (1976–2016) GA 8 (1877–2021) TN 8 (1977–2025) IN 8 (1908–2019) OR 7 (1993–2025) NE 7 (1943–2025) WA 7 (1979–2023) PA 6 (1971–2021) VA 6 (1991–2002) KS 6 (1997–2024) FL 5 (1980–2020) CO 5 (1982–2010) MO 5 (1999–2009) DC 5 (2003–2026) AL 5 (1992–2016) MA 4 (1975–2017) ME 4 (1975–2019) MN 4 (1986–1993) SC 4 (1982–2018) RI 4 (1985–2021) NC 4 (1991–2005) MI 4 (1968–2023) MS 3 (2015–2019) NM 3 (2001–2017) MT 3 (1992–2016) WV 2 (1982–2002) DE 2 (1997–2018) AR 2 (2013–2015) CT 2 (1963–1998) NH 2 (2005–2015) OK 2 (1981–1981) KY 2 (1984–2000)

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