 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colo. Bd. of Psychologist Examiners v. I.W., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2001,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order from Colorado Board of Psychologist Examiners directing a psychologist to produce all confidential records pertaining to a husband that he had counseled was upheld because while Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107(1)(g) barred disclosure of confidential client information without consent, § 12-43-218(1) provided exception for investigatory purposes.
|
|||||
| Green v. Qwest Servs. Corp., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiffs outrageous conduct claims pursuant to summary judgment was affirmed because nicking a natural gas line while completing a telephone repair, causing an explosion, was not so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
|
|||||
| Jam Rest. v. City of Longmont, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1705,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-1-101(3)(a), which prohibited municipalities from enacting ordinances that terminated nonconforming uses that were lawful at inception, addressed statewide concerns against takings without compensation; thus, it prevailed over city's adult business zoning ordinance and did not violate home rule under Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6.
|
|||||
| Pac. Life & Annuity Co. v. Colo. Div. of Ins., Court of Appeals No. 04CA2169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of the Colorado Division of Insurance was reversed and remanded because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-16-704(3) mandated that an insurer pay to an insured only in-network benefits for all services performed at an in-network facility.
|
|||||
| Pastrana v. Hudock, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1928,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that each party had prevailed in part and thus should pay its own costs, thereby denying a pedestrian's Colo. R. Civ. P. 54(d) motion for costs as the prevailing party, because although he was successful on his outrageous conduct claim, his more significant negligence claim had failed.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. A.J.H., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1129,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court held it had authority to grant extension of time for filing notice of Colo. App. R. 3.4 appeal of termination of parental rights based on "unique circumstances exception" as, although trial court's ruling was misleading, father's trial counsel should have recognized his continuing responsibilities and filed timely notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. D.S.L., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0850,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was "in custody" for purposes of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-203(1)(f) (2005) where an officer was attempting to handcuff defendant in circumstances when it was believed that defendant gave false identity in that at the time of the assault, the officer was applying a level of physical control over defendant to ensure that he would not leave.
|
|||||
| People v. Medina, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2282,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for accessory to murder, trial court incorrectly instructed jury on elements for class 5 felony, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-105(4), because defendant was charged with and sentenced for a class 4 felony. Nevertheless, defendant was not entitled to resentencing because no plain error was found.
|
|||||
| People v. Montoya, Court of Appeals No. 03CA0696,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it aggravated defendant's burglary, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-202(1), and kidnapping, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-302(1), and (3)(a), sentences; fact he was on parole or probation was "Blakely-exempt" and was sufficiently related to his prior conviction to not implicate type of prohibited fact-finding detailed in Apprendi.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
