 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bruce v. Pikes Peak Library Dist., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2485,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a library district had received approval in 1986 for increase a maximum tax levy from two mills to no more than four mills for public library funds, the Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Colo. Const. art. X, § 20, was not violated since this was permissible advance approval.
|
|||||
| Buenabenta v. Neet, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the suspension of the inmate's visitation privileges had been shown to be imposed to meet legitimate penological objectives (keeping drugs out of the prison system), and had not been shown to be discriminatorily or irrationally applied, suspension of those privileges without a hearing did not amount to deprivation of due process.
|
|||||
| Bumbal v. Smith, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0893,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where offer of settlement encompassed all claims of negligence and under Colorado Consumer Protection Act, under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202, the offer included all attorney fees sought in the complaint under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2)(b) but did not include costs recoverable under Colo. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-104.
|
|||||
| Clough v. Williams Prod. RMT Co., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0322,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied a natural gas operator's motions for a new trial on a royalty owner's breach of contract action where it properly excluded pre-deregulation evidence as irrelevant under Colo. R. Evid. 401, it properly instructed the jury as to good faith and fair dealing, and the expert testimony provided a basis for the damage award.
|
|||||
| Fire Ins. Exch. v. Monty's Heating & Air Conditioning, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to several construction professionals in a subrogation case brought by an insurer based on an alleged defect that started a fire because the two-year limitations period in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-104(1)(a) applied; a 90-day period only applied to claims brought by the professionals as defendants.
|
|||||
| Garcia v. Mekonnen, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A damage award in a personal injury action against a driver was affirmed where the trial court had not abused its discretion in not permitting the driver to cross-examine the individual's expert as to his connection to the individual's insurer and properly refused to allow the driver to cross-examine the expert using a driver handbook.
|
|||||
| Hurtado v. Brady, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2556,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An assault and battery action arising from an allegation that a chiropractor exposed and massaged the breasts of a patient during an examination was improperly dismissed as time-barred because the six-year period in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.7 applied; the exception in § 13-80-103.7(5) applied to negligence claims, not intentional ones.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of C.T.G., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0783,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Paternity decree awarding parenting time to stepfather was a temporary order, and thus, trial court should have afforded parents the presumption that they were acting in child's best interests under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-124 in terminating stepfather's visitation and should have applied the clear and convincing standard as stepfather's burden.
|
|||||
| Int'l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1990,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board erred when it ruled that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-6-120.5(1) barred manufacturer from operating used vehicle dealership. Section 12-6-120.5(1) applied to "motor vehicle dealer," which was defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-6-102(13). Manufacturer could operate "used motor vehicle dealer," as defined in § 12-6-102(17).
|
|||||
| Parry v. Kuhlmann, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1188,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to defendants. Defendants were entitled to award of costs under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-105 because they had prevailed in malpractice suit. District court had discretion to allow second bill for costs to be filed after the 15 day time period set out in Colo. R. Civ. P. 121, § 1-22(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
