 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Marriage of McSoud, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2682,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order allocating the decisionmaking responsibility for a child's medical care to the father was supported by the record; shared decisionmaking regarding medical care was not in the child's best interests pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-124(1.5)(b)(I) (2005) where the father and mother were utterly incapable of listening to one another.
|
|||||
| People v. Finley, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1907,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which defendant pleaded guilty to violating Colorado's Organized Crime and Control Act, trial court did not err in finding that defendant's plea counsel was competent or that defendant had not shown a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea; defendant's decision to plead guilty was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.
|
|||||
| People v. Hummel, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1618,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was affirmed because defendant was properly sentenced to incarceration under a mandatory sentencing provision, and suspension of the Department of Corrections sentences by the trial court was illegal.
|
|||||
| People v. Rossman, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0425,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condition of probation requiring defendant to submit a biological sample for DNA testing was affirmed because the privacy interests of a probationer did not outweigh the governmental interests advanced by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-204.3(1)(b.5).
|
|||||
| Ross v. Old Republic Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1985,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writs of garnishment entered against the insurer were reversed and remanded because the insurer was not bound by the consent judgment, because the consent judgment was entered by parties whose incentive was to pursue an action against the insurer, which was not a party to the judgment.
|
|||||
| Subsequent Injury Fund v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0278,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Survivors of a decedent were entitled to death benefits pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-115 (2005) because although decedent suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and shock right before his death, his death occurred, in part, as a result of an occupational lung disease for which he had been receiving permanent total disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Wallbank v. Rothenberg, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice suit, appellate court disagreed with parents that they were improperly assigned burden of proof under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-64-302 (2005) when they moved to exceed statutory damages' cap or that trial court considered factors not present in statute because statute did not specify factors to be considered.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. People , Case No. 02CA2487, Case No. 04SC565,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the new rule in Crawford (testimonial out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness) did not constitute a watershed rule of criminal procedure, it was not retroactively applicable to petitioner's assault conviction.
|
|||||
| In re R.M.S., Case No. 05SA308,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a child's aunt and uncle objected to the testamentary appointment of the child's grandmother as guardian, the trial court erred in applying a harm standard and confirming the grandmother's appointment as the s objection triggered the best interest standard under the judicial appointment statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-204.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. People, Case No. 05SC140,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a theft from an at-risk adult prosecution, the trial court properly included prejudgment interest of 8 percent in the restitution order. Under Colorado's restitution statute, trial court was required to include prejudgment interest to fully compensate victim from the time her money was stolen to the time the restitution award was entered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
