 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Kraft Bldg. Contrs., Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To extent fees incurred during federal court proceeding were awarded to landowners against county as a Colo. R. Civ. P. 11 sanction after county voluntarily dismissed its illegal grading suit against them, state trial court lacked jurisdiction to award fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-101 for activity related solely to federal court proceeding.
|
|||||
| In re the Marriage of Ebel, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In husband's request for maintenance from his wife, a trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the request in a post-dissolution proceeding, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-114(3) (2004), because the trial court did not previously reserve jurisdiction to determine or modify maintenance.
|
|||||
| Parker v. City of Golden, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1946,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city's charter amendment concerning the payment of incentives and subsidies to developers was not unconstitutionally retrospective under Colo. Const. art. II, § 11 because the agreements created no vested rights. Because the developers only had a mere expectancy, there was no contract clause violations under § 11 or U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.
|
|||||
| People v. Ra'Shadd, Case Number: 04PDJ023,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney who converted client funds and disobeyed a court order to return them, misrepresented his child support obligations, and placed an advertisement for his services containing false information was disbarred for violating Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c), 3.4(c), and 7.1, as his suffering from seizures was insufficient to overcome disbarment.
|
|||||
| People v. Golden, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0191,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual assault conviction was improper pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-407 (2004) where the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the victim by excluding an inquiry into whether she was in a "committed romantic relationship" with a roommate at the time of the alleged assault.
|
|||||
| People v. Parsley, Case Number: 04PDJ058,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appropriate sanction for attorney whose conduct constituted professional misconduct under Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), (c), and Colo. R. Civ. P. 251.5, was disbarment where attorney fraudulently secured loan on property he did not own because this constituted serious federal and state crimes and evidenced dishonesty.
|
|||||
| People v. Ra'Shadd, 04PDJ023.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Tallwhiteman, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of attempted reckless manslaughter under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-2-101, 18-3-104(1)(a) and first degree assault under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-202(1)(a) did not violate double jeopardy because defendant's causing serious bodily injury did not necessarily mean that he recklessly took step toward causing death of person.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Fritzler (In re L.F.), Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0071,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grandmother did not have standing to seek allocation of the parental responsibilities of her grandchild, including decision-making, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-123(1)(c) (2004) because she provided care to assist the child's parents and the terms of that care were always subject to the discretion and direction of the parents.
|
|||||
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. |
