 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2137,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's claims against natural gas companies concerned ratemaking and thus were within Colorado PUC's jurisdiction; city could not bring claims under Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105 et seq., where it failed to exhaust remedies before PUC and could not invoke them to support CCPA claim.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Rose, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a pending divorce case, it was not error to award the wife prospective fees and costs as Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-119 granted the trial court authority to do so; and as it would decide the ultimate allocation of fees and costs at permanent orders, and as the husband would be entitled to contest any fee or cost award, the order was reasonable.
|
|||||
| Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Condies Salad Co., Inc., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment in favor of an insured was affirmed; although the insured had misrepresented the ownership of a truck on a business auto policy, the misrepresentation regarding the ownership was not material in that the liability provisions of the policy covered any auto regardless of ownership.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. N.A.T., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1512,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a parental rights termination matter, juvenile court's findings were supported in record by clear and convincing evidence, as required by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604(1)(c), because mother failed to comply with treatment plan; further, there were no viable alternatives to termination available.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. T.D., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604, evidence was sufficient to terminate mother's parental rights to her two children because, although mother had separated from the father, trial court was concerned that the separation was not permanent and that the addition of a third child would frustrate the mother's ability to meet the other children's needs.
|
|||||
| People v. Mersman, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0414,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for aggravated driving after revocation prohibited (DARP) and DUI, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-2-206(1)(b)(I)(A), 42-4-1301(1), as he had watery, bloodshot, glazed eyes; odor of alcohol on him; and slurred speech. But, DUI conviction was lesser included offense and merged into DARP conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Nichols, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1864,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-102, court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's deferred judgment based on amended complaints as district attorney had initiated revocation proceedings within original one-year deferred judgment period and court extended deferred judgment and probation periods to allow defendant more time to pay restitution.
|
|||||
| Rombough v. Mitchell, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2457,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed an entry of a default judgment because the appellate court held that defendant's nonappearance at trial was not a failure to "otherwise defend" within the meaning of Colo. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
|
|||||
| Snipes v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 04CA1650,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insurer reformed its policy pursuant to former § 10-4-710(2)(a) of former Auto Accident Reparations Act (No-Fault Act), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-701 et seq., to offer limits of $200,000, insured was not entitled to more than the $ 200,000 aggregate limit because the original policy the insured had purchased unambiguously limited PIP coverage.
|
|||||
| Trask v. Nozisko, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1709,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 9, 2006
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in concluding that an adverse claimant obtained an easement by prescription, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-41-101, where it was undisputed that the owner erected a berm across the driveway; therefore, because the owner physically interrupted the use of the driveway within the prescriptive period, no prescriptive easement was obtained.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
