 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Arvada v. Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency, Case No. 99SC418,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By enacting the statute authorizing the creation of self-insurance pools, the legislature intended to distinguish between such pools and traditional insurance by exempting pools from laws regulating traditional insurance companies.
|
|||||
| Griego v. People, Case No. 99SC228,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Offense of driving while license was revoked required jury instruction of definition of "knowingly." Court's failure to give the instruction was subject to harmless error review and the conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| J.P. Meyer Trucking & Constr., Inc. v. Colo. Sch. Dists. Self Ins. Pool, Case No. 99SC949,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider appeal of denial of motion to dismiss; no-fault act clearly provided for an appeal only after a motion to compel arbitration under had been denied.
|
|||||
| People v. Covington, Case No. 99SC431,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though photographs of victim's gunshot wounds taken in hospital by physician assistant fell under physician-patient privilege, privilege was abrogated by reporting statute, and photographs were admissible.
|
|||||
| People v. Lee, Case No. 00SA258,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's exclusion of DNA evidence linking defendant to hair recovered from scene of sexual assaults was abuse of discretion. Continuance was adequate to cure prejudice from obtaining statistical-analysis of testing 26 days before trial.
|
|||||
| Town of Erie v. Eason, Case No. 99SC835,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Semi-trailers intended to be used as public self-storage rental units fit within the meaning of the term structure under the Uniform Building Code, and were therefore subject to all appropriate permit requirements.
|
|||||
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Vail Assocs., Inc., Case No. 98SC869, Case No. 99SC126,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 26, 2001, Decided (99SC126); February 26, 2001, Decided (98SC869)
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property tax exemption for ski areas and others with long-term possessory interests in federal property was unconstitutional because it created a disparate tax treatment, and an appropriate exemption was not included in the state constitution.
|
|||||
| City & County of Denver v. Qwest Corp., Case No. 99SA219,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Municipal ordinance requiring telecommunications companies to obtain permits before using its public rights-of-way was invalid, as state law implementing deregulation authorized such use without local authorization.
|
|||||
| Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., Case No. 99SC491,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, February 26, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plant investment fee imposed by sanitation district on townhouse project did not fall into the narrow category of charges subject to a constitutional takings analysis; fee was neither a land use regulation nor an exaction of property.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
