 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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).
|
|||||
| Curtis v. Hyland Hills Park & Rec. Dist., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2520,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a visitor's only allegation was that a park and recreation district was negligent in its operation of a water-themed attraction, the trial court erred when it ruled that the absence of an individual or system to regulate the spacing of visitors in rafts constituted a dangerous condition under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
|
|||||
| El Paso County Dep't of Human Servs. v. Martin (In re Estate of Morgan), Court of Appeals No. 06CA0200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a county department of human services (DHS) did not submit to the court's jurisdiction in any proceedings concerning a ward's guardianship, and the court had no authority to order DHS to become the ward's guardian over its objection, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-111, the court erred by appointing DHS as the ward's guardian.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Hatton, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0469,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred because it denied mother any parenting time without expressly considering the least detrimental alternative aspect of the best interests standard, in addition to the endangerment standard in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129, and further erred giving father discretion to determine whether mother could exercise any parenting time.
|
|||||
| Kim v. Grover C. Coors Trust, Court of Appeals Nos.: 04CA0583 & 04CA1203,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 8, 2007, Announced
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a shareholder suit, the record supported the trial court's finding that material information was disclosed to a special committee of independent directors who approved a transaction involving the purchase of another company's assets. The information was available, but the independent directors did not have time to review all of it.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. D.P., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1808,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was appropriate under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604 based on unfitness where the evidence showed that the mother and father's functioning level was so low that they were unable to care for the child; moreover, the father's parenting skills had not dramatically improved, and there was no less drastic alternative.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| People v. Edwards, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from denial of his second request for additional presentence confinement credit was dismissed as moot as defendant had completed confinement portion of his sentence by virtue of having been placed on mandatory parole thus balance of sentence of incarceration was discharged pursuant of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(D).
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0096,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual exploitation and drug manufacturing convictions under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-6-403 and 18-18-405 were upheld because, inter alia, the search of defendant's bedroom during a search of his father's house was reasonable and the special offender provision of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-407(1)(f) was not unconstitutionally overbroad.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
