 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Fines, Case No. 05SA258,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment at the time of her consent to search her purse and when her statements were made to police, without any suggestion of attenuation from the initial illegality, the trial court's suppression order was affirmed.
|
|||||
| People v. Vigil, Case No. 04SC532,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sexual assault on child case, trial court did not err in admitting child's statements to doctor. Under Crawford, statements were non-testimonial because doctor's questioning was to determine child's injuries, rather than as an agent of police. Further, they were for purposes of medical diagnosis under Colo. R. Evid. 803(4).
|
|||||
| Clayton v. Snow, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1942,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fee award was reversed insofar as it awarded fees for the psychiatric expert because it was undisputed that the testimony of the psychiatric expert was found to be inadmissible at the first trial and was not introduced on retrial, thus the testimony could not be regarded as reasonably necessary to the disposition of the case.
|
|||||
| Fabiano v. Armstrong, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2552,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Obligation to register as a sex offender was affirmed because the petitioner's federal convictions required proof that he received the child pornography with an awareness of the nature of the material and that he accepted the material with knowledge of its nature, conduct identical to that prohibited by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-403(2)(j).
|
|||||
| Usick v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1943,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an insurance coverage dispute between an insured and her insurer, insured's preexisting condition was not covered because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-16-118(1)(a)(II) did not proscribe exclusion of particular preexisting condition and policy's exclusion from treatment for endometriosis did not dilute statutory coverage or violate public policy.
|
|||||
| People v. Montoya, 06PDJ004,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
