 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hills v. Westminster Mun. Court, Court of Appeals No. 08CA0873,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SEVEN, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel's rejection of a new trial date within the speedy trial time period extended the speedy trial deadline set forth in Colo. Mun. Ct. R. 248(b). Because trial court set a trial date within the speedy trial period but defense counsel objected to that date because of his own scheduling conflict, the delay was attributable to defendant.
|
|||||
| Lavarato v. Branney, Court of Appeals No. 08CA1020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SEVEN, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A patient's professional negligence claim against a doctor was time-barred under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-80-102.5. Neither the patient's original complaint nor his amended complaint gave the doctor any reason to believe that, but for a mistake in identity, the doctor would have been named as a defendant.
|
|||||
| Munoz-Hoyos v. de Cortez, Court of Appeals No. 08CA1301,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| O'Neil v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., Court of Appeals No. 08CA1461,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff alleged that a law firm had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), trial court did not have an adequate basis for granting summary judgment for the firm. There was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that parties did not intend settlement to preclude plaintiff from later asserting TCPA claims.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. T.M.W., Court of Appeals Nos. 08CA2335 & 08CA2336,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because proper notices were not sent to all relevant tribes as required under the ICWA, the juvenile court's judgments terminating a mother's parental rights had to vacated and the cases remanded so that notice could be given in accordance with the provisions of the ICWA and the Colorado Children's Code.
|
|||||
| People v. Huggins, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1259,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Scheffer, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0780,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SEVEN, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Encounter was consensual under Colo. Const. art. II, ¿ 7 because neither officer displayed authority or control over defendant, only one officer questioned or searched defendant, neither officer displayed a weapon, and there was no indication that the officer spoke to defendant in a threatening manner, rather than merely conversational tone.
|
|||||
| Ritter v. Jones, Court of Appeals No. 08CA0506,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 2, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Draft legislation produced by Office of Legislative Legal Services was work product under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-72-202(6.5)(b) that was exempt from disclosure. In addition, redacted portion of memorandum concerning the draft legislation that was sent to the Governor's legal counsel was exempt from disclosure.
|
|||||
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. |
