 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kourlis v. Port, No. 99CA0937,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because sentence for punitive contempt of court's order was limited to a maximum of six months, defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. Pet animal facility statute did not violate prohibitions against equal protection.
|
|||||
| Magnetic Eng'g, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, No. 99CA1380,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ credited claimant's testimony and found restrictions and limitations from claimant's injuries prevented him from returning to his pre-injury job duties; thus, award of temporary total disability benefits was proper.
|
|||||
| Martini v. Smith, No. 99CA0714,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ordinance deannexing subdivision did not effect vacation of roadway within subdivision because it failed to sufficiently identify affected roadway to put a person searching county records on notice that road had been vacated.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. N.D.S., No. 99CA1459,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parents' due process rights did not entitle them to object to agency's placement in foster care. Parents had statutory duty to contribute to costs, even though they were victims of child's crime which led to placement.
|
|||||
| People v. Deroulet, No. 98CA0715,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although questioning of witnesses' propensity to violence was improper character evidence, admission was not plain error. Defendant was not entitled to jury trial as habitual criminal. No sentence was per se constitutional.
|
|||||
| People v. Laurson, No. 99CA0051,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requested jury instruction on self-defense was properly refused when no evidence was presented indicating that defendant would have had a reasonable belief that the use of unlawful physical force against him was imminent.
|
|||||
| People v. McDonald, No. 98CA2037,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nurse employee's conviction was reversed because it was error to place the burden of paying for the redaction of voluminous hospital records from which prosecutor introduced summary evidence on non-proponent of the evidence.
|
|||||
| People v. Parsons, No. 98CA1000,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although questioned in a separate building rather than in familiar cellblock surroundings and confronted with evidence of blood, inmate was not "in custody" for Miranda purposes when interviewed.
|
|||||
| People v. Sherwood, No. 99CA0260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal offense of vehicular eluding required no proof that the elusive behavior and the reckless driving must occur simultaneously.
|
|||||
| Sanderson v. People, No. 99CA0203,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute prohibiting assisted suicide did not violate the First Amendment because it was a valid, religiously-neutral, and generally-applicable criminal statute that prohibited conduct which a state was free to regulate.
|
|||||
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. |
