|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Colorado - March 9, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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 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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|