 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| BS & C Enters., L.L.C. v. Barnett, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0647,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Colo. R. Civ. P. 55(b), beneficiary's motion to set aside default judgment was improperly denied as letter from son to company was appearance, but he was not given written notice of application. Beneficiary could argue whether service by publication had to be set aside if company did not act with due diligence under Colo. R. Civ. P. 4(g).
|
|||||
| DOT v. City of Idaho Springs, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The state transportation department was not exempt from a city's regulatory scheme adopted pursuant to the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-65.1-101 et seq. (2007), as the department was a person under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-65.1-102, and Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 43-1-1101 (2007) did not preempt the city's authority.
|
|||||
| Delsas v. Centex Home Equity Co., Court of Appeals No. 06CA2571,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Existence of a material issue of fact remained on the issue of whether the deed was void, as opposed to being voidable, because unless fraud in the factum was proved, the creditors, as good faith purchasers, had a valid interest in the house, even if it the grantor was mentally incapacitated.
|
|||||
| Montoya v. Connolly's Towing, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 07CA0109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment dismissing the claimant's negligence action was reversed and remanded because the towing company had a duty to apply its customer safety rules uniformly or alternatively, to disclose to third parties that its customer safety rules were not applied to vehicles owned by certain individuals.
|
|||||
| People v. Grassi, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1051,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded for further proceedings because the trial court erred when it determined that Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 42-4-1301.1(8), did not require the police to have probable cause before his blood was drawn to test his blood alcohol content.
|
|||||
| People v. Howard, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2297,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a plainclothes officer's one-on-one identification as there was no due process concern, and the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find defendant acted knowingly or willfully while engaging in a high speed chase and convict him of criminal mischief under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-4-501(1).
|
|||||
| People v. Wittrein, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were set aside and he was entitled to a new trial, because defense counsel objected to holding the child competency hearing in the jury's presence, and the impact of conducting the competency proceedings in the presence of the jury could not be diminished.
|
|||||
| Sperry v. Field, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0282,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was not error to award plaintiff postjudgment interest calculated from date personal injury judgment for money damages was entered to date of satisfaction, under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-21-101, as plaintiff failed to request prejudgment interest in complaint and court had no jurisdiction to award interest accruing before date judgment was entered.
|
|||||
| Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge North Am., Inc., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0595,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 1, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: "No damages for delay" clauses were valid and enforceable in Colorado, active interference by an owner or contractor was a recognized exception to such clauses, and a subcontractor presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find such interference by a contractor; thus, the contractor's motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.
|
|||||
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. |
