 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beach v. Beach, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partitioning the mother's interest would not undermine or defeat the oral agreement because the parties never agreed to limit who could reside in the addition, and partition would not deprive the daughter of the value of her remainder interest.
|
|||||
| Combs v. Norwak, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0661,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory procedures requiring demand for successor elections in recall petitions were applicable to recall committee's petitions for city officials, as city charter specifically incorporated statutory provisions in its recall procedures.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Stewart, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0558,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In instances where the parties shared equal parenting responsibilities, any subsequent modification of that arrangement was governed by the best interests standard.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Talbott, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0097,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a magistrate's order was entered outside the presence of the parties and later mailed to them, the 15-day period allowed for filing a motion for review or for enlargement of time to file commenced on the date the order was mailed.
|
|||||
| Jaimes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 00CA0042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage statute required benefits to the insured when injured in an accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured motorist without regard to the vehicle occupied by the insured at the time of injury.
|
|||||
| Mid Century Ins. Co. v. Gates Rubber Co., Court of Appeals No. 01CA0743,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of attorney fees to lessor was reversed when the insurer was not a third party for purposes of an indemnification provision, as its action was in subrogation and was therefore the same action that would otherwise been taken by the insured.
|
|||||
| Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 01CA0272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, January 31, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A pedestrian was entitled to PIP benefits from three insurers' for injuries sustained when she attempted to help the occupant of a distressed vehicle, and the accident involved all three vehicles insured by the three insurers.
|
|||||
| People v. Marez, Case No. 00SC695,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 4, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's sentence to imprisonment and mandatory parole was not inevitable at time of his plea and, in fact, could not have been lawfully imposed prior to his subsequent breach, it was direct consequence of his plea to burglary.
|
|||||
| People v. Segal, 01PDJ027 (consolidated with 01PDJ047),
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for committing misconduct consisting of neglect, failure to communicate with clients, and appearing on behalf of a client while under suspension.
|
|||||
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. |
