|
|
| |
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 8, 2007
|
| |
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1402,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where a preliminary injunction was disapproved on appeal, the award of $ 75,000 in attorney fees was reasonable because, inter alia, the trial court on remand was free to award more than the $ 5,000 injunction bond under the law of the case; prejudgment interest was properly denied under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102.
|
|
| |
Brodeur v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Rule I 1-1(B), 7 Colo. Code Regs. 1101-3, mailing of written order to attorney for workers' compensation claimant satisfied notice requirement of mailing order to claimant as a party in interest, and the time within which to file petition for review commenced running on date indicated in certificate of mailing, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-43-301(2).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Cohn, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0295,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The exclusion of defendant from the courtroom due to his misconduct, while acting as his own counsel, was constitutional error, Sixth Amendment, because defendant was absent from what was undeniably a critical stage of the proceedings, the exercise of peremptory challenges, and he was denied an opportunity to exercise his own peremptory challenges.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|