 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. White, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0509,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting the People's Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct defendant's sentence was affirmed because defendant's sentence for attempted escape was, in part, concurrent with defendant's sentence for motor vehicle theft; thus, the sentencing order resulted in an illegal sentence.
|
|||||
| Walsenburg Sand & Gravel Co. v. City Council of Walsenburg, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1470,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiffs alleged that prior to the city council meeting, the mayor had already accepted a bid on the sale of certain land, and that all votes taken later concerning the sale were "rubber stamping" decisions previously made at the prior invalid meeting, plaintiffs' Open Meeting Law claim should have survived a motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Yaekle v. Andrews, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute between business owners, a revised settlement agreement was properly enforced because it met the Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-308(1) requirements and the co-owner never challenged certain provisions of the revised agreement; remand was necessary as to an award of attorney fees because the trial court did not identify the award's basis.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
