 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth., Case No. 04SC100,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In absence of clear intent to abrogate the common law doctrine of res judicata, a section of the Colorado Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities Act did not provide an exception to res judicata such that a company could raise its statutory reformation claim in a subsequent judicial proceeding when the claim could have been raised in a previous action.
|
|||||
| Auman v. People , Case No. 02SC885,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As trial court improperly instructed jury and evidence of the burglary was not overwhelming, defendant's second degree burglary conviction, Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-4-203(1) (1998), was reversed. Since her underlying felony conviction for burglary was reversed, her felony murder conviction, Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-3-102(1)(b) (1999), was also reversed.
|
|||||
| E. Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Rangeview Metro. Dist., Case No. 04SA6,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the metropolitan district's action seeking to be relieved of conditions imposed in a prior water decree, the water court properly authorized the district to construct additional wells as necessary as the State was not required to make a threshold showing of a non-speculative, beneficial use under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 37-90-137 (2004).
|
|||||
| Envirotest Sys. v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Case No. 04SA376,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing officer's order, denying the issuance of certain requested subpoenas, was not a final agency action for purposes of judicial review under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-4-106(2) (2004). The order also did not meet the requirements of the finality exception of Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-4-106(8) (2004) because the company did not show irreparable injury.
|
|||||
| People v. Harlan, Case No. 03SA173,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A death sentence was overturned and life in prison without parole was imposed because jurors improperly considered Bible verses during deliberations in the sentencing phase of the trial; the court was permitted to consider certain evidence under Colo. R. Evid. 606(b) in order to ascertain whether defendant was prejudiced.
|
|||||
| People v. Turner, Case No. 04SA178,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even a broad outline of the assistance that a domestic violence agency provided to a defendant's girlfriend was protected by the Colorado statutory victim-advocate privilege; and the trial court accordingly erred in compelling a domestic violence agency to provide that outline in the course of defendant's domestic violence trial.
|
|||||
| Wash. County Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., Case No. 03SC787,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, March 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In tax dispute, county board of equalization erred in denying oil company's request for deduction of processing costs at leasehold site because legislature, pursuant to Colo. Const. art. X, ¿ 3(1)(b) and Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 39-7-101(1)(d) (2004), intended for tax assessment to be based on selling price at wellhead, where extracted material emerged.
|
|||||
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. |
