 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Crowe v. Tull, Case No. 04SA385,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action alleging violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), trial court erred in dismissing law firm's former client's CCPA claim because attorneys and law firms could be liable if they knowingly engaged in a deceptive trade practice.
|
|||||
| Romanoff v. State Comm'n on Judicial Performance, Case No. 05SA330,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute concerning appointments to Colorado State Commission on Judicial Performance, the supreme court held that two appointments were invalid, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-5.5-102(1)(a), because the statute created a regimen of fixed, four-year terms, which began and ended in even numbered years, for each commissioner.
|
|||||
| Winter v. People, Case No. 04SC654,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of third degree burglary, a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-204 (2005), was vacated because, employee lockers from which he had stolen money were unsecured, unlocked, and did not have appearance of being employed for the safekeeping of valuables, thus they were not within the class of items contemplated by § 18-4-204(1).
|
|||||
| People v. Barr, Case Number: 05PDJ038,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The disbarment of the attorney was appropriate pursuant to Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and 1.3, and Colo. R. Civ. P. 251.5 because he caused significant harm to a former client; there was an absence of mitigating factors; and there were numerous aggravating factors presented in the case, including prior discipline.
|
|||||
| People v. Barr, 05PDJ038,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, January 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Compass Bank v. Kone, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1914,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a secured creditor had a prior perfected security interest supported by consideration under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-203(b)(1), the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in her favor and ordered that she was entitled to interpleaded proceeds deposited with the clerk of the court.
|
|||||
| Turman v. Castle Law Firm, LLC, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that a law firm that was acting as counsel for foreclosing lender owed a duty of care to buyers of a house at the foreclosure sale; buyers' action for damages, which was brought after foreclosure sale was set aside, fell within the general rule that attorneys had no duty to act for benefit of those who were not clients.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2192,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, January 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Issues regarding maximum medical improvement and the impairment rating were closed because the claimant's request was outside the thirty-day time limit imposed by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-107.2(2)(b), when Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-107.2(2)(b) governed both initial independent medical examination's and follow-up examinations.
|
|||||
| People v. Cross, Case No. 05SC17,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The "knowingly" mens rea in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-111 applied to the acts of a defendant who "repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with" the victim because the stalker might not be aware that those acts might cause a reasonable person to suffer severe emotional distress.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
