 |
|
 |
|
|
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. City & County of Denver, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 00CA0217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's award of contractual damages in favor of neighboring cities based on excessive noise levels at an airport was affirmed. Evidence satisfied the three elements required for a valid liquidated damages clause.
|
|||||
| Boeheim v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to unemployment benefits contrary to statute on the basis that a state employee misinformed the petitioner regarding the imposition and timing of a deferral of petitioner's benefits.
|
|||||
| Hale v. Erickson, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort suit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to defendant even after its insurer actually paid those costs; the trial court was permitted to impose joint and several liability upon plaintiffs for such costs.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Lake Fork Cove Alliance, Inc. (In re Estate of Masden), Court of Appeals No. 99CA2327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probate proceeding was not the proper forum to resolve a real property dispute between two separate homeowners associations because all of the individual property owners had to be notified and afforded an opportunity to participate.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Gance, Court of Appeals No. 99CA1627,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An independent equitable action based upon fraud, brought for the purpose of setting aside a prior order for dissolution of marriage had to assert more than intrinsic fraud, such as perjury or nondisclosure by a party to the litigation.
|
|||||
| Lewitz v. Porath Family Trust, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0438,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a property dispute, an easement over defendant's land clearly remained appurtenant to some other parcel; matter remanded for determination of which parcel the easement was intended to benefit according to the 1971 deed.
|
|||||
| People v. Boyd, Court of Appeals No. 99CA1896,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal appeal, defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of a statutory scheme was incompatible with the constitutional plain error standard of review.
|
|||||
| People v. Green, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0389,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because timeliness could preclude a Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c) motion, defendant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to assert facts that could constitute justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for not timely filing his motion.
|
|||||
| People v. Pierrie, Court of Appeals No. 99CA2414,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislative history demonstrated that appellant's offense of possession of controlled substance with intent to distribute was considered a serious danger to society and intended to be a class three felony.
|
|||||
| People v. Thoro Prods. Co., Court of Appeals No. 99CA1365,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, March 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for disposal of hazardous waste without a permit were obtained in violation of five-year statute of limitation. Defendants' omissions and requisite knowledge and damage to another's property sufficiently proved criminal mischief.
|
|||||
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. |
