Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Remote Switch Systems, Inc. v. Delangisgreen2 sentences2008The ALJ identified postfiling efforts as among those factors that "a trial court must consider in determining whether a litigant is entitled to an award of attorney fees," citing Remote Switch Systems, Inc. v. Delangis, 126 P.3d 269, 275 (Colo.App.2005). 2008The ALJ identified postfiling efforts as among those factors that "a trial court must consider in determining whether a litigant is entitled to an award of attorney fees," citing Remote Switch Systems, Inc. v. Delangis, 126 P.3d 269, 275 (Colo.App.2005). | 2 | 2 |
People v. McCormickgreen1 sentence2024See People v. McCormick, 839 P.2d 474, 481 (Colo. App. 1992) (holding no abuse of discretion when request was denied as untimely because it was made on the day of trial), rev’d on other grounds, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo. 1993). 9 ¶ 24 Thus, we conclude that the juvenile court’s refusal to reinstate mother’s jury trial was not manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCormickgreen1 sentence2024See People v. McCormick, 839 P.2d 474, 481 (Colo. App. 1992) (holding no abuse of discretion when request was denied as untimely because it was made on the day of trial), rev’d on other grounds, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo. 1993). 9 ¶ 24 Thus, we conclude that the juvenile court’s refusal to reinstate mother’s jury trial was not manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Higgins v. Colorado Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2024But see Higgins v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 876 P.2d 124, 126 (Colo. App. 1994) (holding that petitioner may not assert error on ground not asserted at hearing). ¶ 16 But we cannot make credibility findings or substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United States
red
1 sentence2001On the morning of the hearing the court distributed a written order dated July 18, finding that the PCR method of DNA comparison met the standards of acceptability of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), but it excluded any evidence of DNA found in the tested semen mixture on the grounds that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation had not been able to connect it to the defendant in any statistically significant manner. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.