 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Avalanche Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0716,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ did not abuse his discretion in determining that a workers' compensation claimant's average weekly wage should be calculated based upon her wages nearly five years after she initially sustained her injury because the calculation was a fair approximation of claimant's wage loss.
|
|||||
| Barber v. Ritter, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0752,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court erred in holding that the taxpayers lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of certain cash fund transfers, most of the transfers did not violate Colo. Const. art. X, § 20, and art. XI, §§ 3 and 4, as the special funds were not changed into tax funds and the transfers at issue did not create debt.
|
|||||
| Benzing v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1633,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute pertaining to the purchase of uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage, trial court abused its discretion in decertifying a class, pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 23, because insurers could have made argument that insureds received meaningful benefit from additional coverage earlier, but failed to do so.
|
|||||
| City Council v. S. Suburban Park & Rec. Dist., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0292,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a city sought exclusion of property from a special district under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-502 and a trial court ordered the exclusion, remand was warranted because the trial court erred in finding that to be "fair and equitable" under § 32-1-502 it had to require the city to reimburse the district for the fair market value of the facilities.
|
|||||
| Colo. Mining Ass'n v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1996,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (MLRA) expressly preempted a county regulation describing designated chemicals performance standards because it set reclamation standards different from those established in the MLRA; however, a county regulation's ban on cyanide was not expressly preempted, because it was not a reclamation standard.
|
|||||
| Cowger v. Henderson Heavy Haul Trucking, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0416,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Subcontractor's employee's injury did not arise from the use of the subcontractor's crane; it arose from the contractor's request that he lift a power line. Thus, there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the contractor was a statutory employer under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-401(2) when the employee was injured.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of K.L.L., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1884,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners did not have standing to seek custodial adoption of a child as the child's legal custodians under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-5-203(1)(k) because, although they had had physical custody of the child for more than one year, there had been no court action divesting the parents of legal custody.
|
|||||
| Isis Litig., L.L.C. v. Svensk Filmindustri, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1619,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Post-judgment interrogatories issued pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 69(d)(1), 45(f) constituted process, and the discharge of a show cause order was reversed because, when service on a corporation's registered agent was not achieved, service on a secretary of state, as approved by the state's court, was proper and constituted personal service.
|
|||||
| JJR 1, LLC v. Mt. Crested Butte, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2553,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, March 22, 2007, Announced
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the town zoning code did not create a constitutionally recognized property interest in the preservation of scenic views, the owners also did not have a protected property interest in notice of and participation in a design review. Thus, their 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claims for declaratory relief under Colo. R. Civ. P. 57 were properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Morales v. CAMB, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where monuments marking the boundary between two lots were inconsistent with at least one distance call shown on the subdivision plat, a neighbor was entitled to summary judgment because, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-51-105, the monuments controlled the location of the boundary line and superseded any inconsistent boundary line on the plat.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
