 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Lowry, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1226,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's Colo. R. Crim. P. 35 motion to vacate his conviction was appropriate because a violation of a protection order was a lesser non-included offense of his sexual assault charges, and because Colo. Stat. § 16-5-401(12) exempted lesser non-included offenses from the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| People v. Moore-El, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's illegal sentence claims were cognizable under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c), but, defendant alleged no justifiable excuse or excusable neglect and, accordingly, his assertions were time barred by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-402(1); the § 16-5-402(1) limitation period served to also bar defendant's Eighth Amendment proportionality claims.
|
|||||
| Shelby Res., LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a bank failed to timely pay an account holder's sight draft, the bank's liability for mishandling the sight draft was properly limited to the face value of the draft because the bank was a collecting bank under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 4-1-103(a)(3), 4-4-105, and 4-4-106; the UCC displaced plaintiffs' common law negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Zahner v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1687,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for insurance company in a dispute concerning the limits of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage and the offset of workers' compensation benefits was affirmed because the policy a was a complying policy under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-703(2) (thus, the $ 200,000 aggregate applied to her reformed PIP coverage).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
