 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chapman v. Willey, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1299,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directed verdict in favor of the motel owners was affirmed because the claimant became a trespasser when he returned to the motel for the purpose of fighting, and no evidence was presented of a willful or deliberate act on the part of the owners to create a dangerous condition or to cause injury to the claimant.
|
|||||
| Grynberg v. Karlin, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1948,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed because the client never responded to the requests for admissions and made no effort to begin the process of responding to the requests and the client admitted the relevant subject matter of the requests by failing to respond in a timely way to the requests for admissions.
|
|||||
| In re Petition of Taylor, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father was given advance notice of the date and time of hearing, grounds upon which petition was based, and a warning that his failure to appear might result in the termination of his parental rights and the adoption of his children by stepfather. Thus, he was afforded due process, and his failure to appear did not cause a subsequent deprivation.
|
|||||
| Nichols v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. , Court of Appeals No. 03CA2145,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damage award in the engineer's negligence action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act was affirmed because the jury's finding that $ 800,000 would fairly compensate the engineer for his injuries did not include any offset for the engineer's negligence or for pre-existing conditions.
|
|||||
| People v. Ellis, Court of Appeals No.: 02CA2320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-71-105, which did not disqualify a juror with a felony conviction, was rationally related to legitimate purpose of rehabilitating convicted felons and reintegrating them into society once their punishment was complete. Thus, defendant's right to equal protection was not violated by impaneling a juror with a felony conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Grizzle, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not admit the culpable mental state necessary to the two attempted sexual assault on a child charges, the affirmative defense of entrapment, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-709, was not available to him. Thus, trial court properly refused to instruct jury on affirmative defense of entrapment and to permit him to call expert witness.
|
|||||
| W. Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1458,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding against the manufacturer in the dealer's tort action was proper pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-107 because the marital communications privilege protected spouses, not third parties. The manufacturer was not asserting error on appeal to protect the sanctity of the manager's marriage, but to protect itself from civil liability.
|
|||||
| People v. Tatum, 05PDJ053.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, March 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
