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 1980–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Viles v. Scofieldgreen2 sentences2002Viles v. Scofield, 128 Colo. 185, 187 , 261 P.2d 148, 149 (1953). [11] A few states have adopted statutes that specifically permit courts to order genetic testing and use the results of those tests to set aside existing paternity judgments. 2002Viles v. Scofield, 128 Colo. 185, 187 , 261 P.2d 148, 149 (1953). [11] A few states have adopted statutes that specifically permit courts to order genetic testing and use the results of those tests to set aside existing paternity judgments. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Herreragreen2 sentences1980But see People v. Herrera, 188 Colo. 403 , 534 P.2d 1199 (1975); and People v. Moya, 180 Colo. 228 , 504 P.2d 352 (1972). 1980But see People v. Herrera, 188 Colo. 403 , 534 P.2d 1199 (1975); and People v. Moya, 180 Colo. 228 , 504 P.2d 352 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. District Court of Summit County
green
1 sentence1991Furthermore, if the prosecution may file a direct information in the district court simply because it made a tactical error at the preliminary hearing in the county court, there is little incentive to comply with the requirements governing preliminary hearings set forth in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and interpreted in case law; Holmes v. District Court, supra. Here, the prosecution relied to a large extent upon the testimony of the victim’s girlfriend to establish probable cause at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Freiman
green
1 sentence1983People v. Freiman, supra. If the People may file a direct information in the district court simply because they made a tactical error at the preliminary hearing in the county court, there is little incentive to comply with the requirements governing preliminary hearings set forth in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and interpreted in case law. 5 See Chavez v. District Court, 648 P.2d 658 (Colo.1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Chavez v. DIST. COURT FOR 17TH JUDICIAL DIST.
green
2 sentences1983If the People may file a direct information in the district court simply because they made a tactical error at the preliminary hearing in the county court, there is little incentive to comply with the requirements governing preliminary hearings set forth in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and interpreted in case law. [5] See Chavez v. District Court, 648 P.2d 658 (Colo.1982). 1983People v. Freiman, supra. If the People may file a direct information in the district court simply because they made a tactical error at the preliminary hearing in the county court, there is little incentive to comply with the requirements governing preliminary hearings set forth in the Rules of Criminal Procedure and interpreted in case law. 5 See Chavez v. District Court, 648 P.2d 658 (Colo.1982). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Moya
neutral
2 sentences1980But see People v. Herrera, 188 Colo. 403 , 534 P.2d 1199 (1975); and People v. Moya, 180 Colo. 228 , 504 P.2d 352 (1972). 1980But see People v. Herrera, 188 Colo. 403 , 534 P.2d 1199 (1975); and People v. Moya, 180 Colo. 228 , 504 P.2d 352 (1972). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.