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 1890–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2020See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 818 (1975) (“The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense.”); see also Colo. Const. art. 2017Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975) (“The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense.”); Colo. Const. art. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Romerogreen2 sentences2020II, § 16 (“[T]he accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person.”). ¶ 16 “The right of self-representation . . . is personal to the defendant and may not be abridged by compelling a defendant to accept a lawyer when he desires to represent himself.” People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 1985); see also People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶ 16 . ¶ 17 Because waiving the right to counsel and opting to proceed pro se implicates constitutional rights, the trial court must ensure that the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily relinquished the right to counsel in fa 2017II, § 16 (“the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person”); People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 1985) (“The right of self-representation, therefore, is personal to the defendant and may not be abridged by compelling a defendant to accept a lawyer when he desires to represent himself. . . . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020II, § 16 (“[T]he accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person.”). ¶ 16 “The right of self-representation . . . is personal to the defendant and may not be abridged by compelling a defendant to accept a lawyer when he desires to represent himself.” People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 1985); see also People v. Johnson, 2015 COA 54, ¶ 16 . ¶ 17 Because waiving the right to counsel and opting to proceed pro se implicates constitutional rights, the trial court must ensure that the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily relinquished the right to counsel in fa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co.
green
2 sentences1984A privy is one who is “directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make a defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.” Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942) (adopted in Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co., 30 Colo.App. 21 , 488 P.2d 103 (1971) and cited with approval in Pomeroy v. Waitkus, supra ). 1984A privy is one who is “directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make a defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.” Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942) (adopted in Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co., 30 Colo.App. 21 , 488 P.2d 103 (1971) and cited with approval in Pomeroy v. Waitkus, supra ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association
green
2 sentences1984A privy is one who is “directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make a defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.” Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942) (adopted in Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co., 30 Colo.App. 21 , 488 P.2d 103 (1971) and cited with approval in Pomeroy v. Waitkus, supra ). 1984A privy is one who is “directly interested in the subject matter, and had a right to make a defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.” Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n, 19 Cal.2d 807 , 122 P.2d 892 (1942) (adopted in Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co., 30 Colo.App. 21 , 488 P.2d 103 (1971) and cited with approval in Pomeroy v. Waitkus, supra ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Duryea v. Burt
green
1 sentence1890Therefore, though in the nature of real property it is subject to all the debts of the partnership, and subject to the debts of one of the partners incurred in the administration of the property, there can be no doubt that the plaintiffs have a right to make this claim. ” These principles are clearly stated and elaborated in Duryea v. Burt, supra. ■ The relation, then, which existed between the parties before and at the time appellant Meagher obtained the lease of the property in question, was that of mining partners. | 1 | 1890–1890 |
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.