 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alpha Spacecom, Inc. v. Hu, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1244,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal under Colo. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) divested a district court of jurisdiction to grant defendants' motion to dismiss because defendants had not filed an answer or summary judgment motion; voluntary dismissal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to decide a motion for a shareholder meeting.
|
|||||
| Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Murakami, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1472,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grant of summary judgment in favor of a driver's insurer in its declaratory judgment action against a passenger concerning UM coverage was appropriate because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-609 permitted insurers to aggregate recovery from the tortfeasors' insurers and offset the amount against UM/UIM coverage.
|
|||||
| Brodak v. Visconti, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1301.1(2)(a)(II), because the driver was receiving medical treatment at a hospital where breath testing was not available, the arresting officer properly required him to take a blood test; the statute did not define or limit medical treatment.
|
|||||
| Denny Constr., Inc. v. City & County of Denver, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1535,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in awarding a contractor lost profits on a breach of contract claim against the City and County as a claim that the contractor would have received profits from future public project contracts if its bonding capacity had not been impaired was speculative as a matter of law. The contractor's request for costs was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Fisher v. 1st Consumers Funding, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1753,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-124 barred claims between parties who were creditors and debtors, and defendant mortgage broker did not meet the statutory definition of a creditor. In its answer to the complaint, the broker admitted that it was a mortgage broker, performing certain loan origination services for individuals.
|
|||||
| MDM Group Assocs. v. CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2614,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance broker could not maintain suit against insurers for tortious interference with contract to which insurers were party, so it could not assert tortious interference as to contracts between insurers and insured. Nor could it assert claim against insurers for prospective contractual relations if insurers were expected to be party to contract.
|
|||||
| Paratransit Risk Retention Group Ins. Co. v. Kamins, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0905,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that payments company director made to himself rendered company unable to pay its debts in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-106-401(3)(a), was reversed; inter alia, court did not articulate and analyze federal bankruptcy court factors in determining whether company was insolvent at time of director's distributions to himself.
|
|||||
| People v. Dahl, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1206,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Sixth Amendment and due process rights were violated by the denial of his motion for a mistrial because a trial court's act of seriously admonishing a juror who failed to appear for trial about the consequences of his actions created an unacceptably high risk of a coerced verdict.
|
|||||
| People v. Victorian, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0234,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sexual assault on a child conviction was affirmed where testimony from defendant's daughters was properly admitted, a motion to disqualify the district attorney was properly denied, and a witness's address was properly kept confidential. Confining defendant to his home while recuperating did not violate Colo. Const. art. II, § 19(2.5)(a)(III).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
