 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abril Meadows Homeowner's Ass'n v. Castro, Court of Appeals No. 07CA2440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Declaration did not properly establish a homeowner's association under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act because the unsigned declaration contravened requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33.3-201 (2008). Because declaration was unsigned, it did not meet deed execution requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat §§ 38-10-106, -108, -113 (2008).
|
|||||
| Bates v. Henneberry, Court of Appeals No. 08CA1477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a Medicaid benefits case, an applicant's claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 against the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and various directors was properly dismissed because 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 1396a(a)(17) and 1396p(d)(3)(B) did not contain rights creating language essential to enforcement of an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
|
|||||
| Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., Court of Appeals No. 08CA0134,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case, a court erred by failing to grant a telephone company a hearing on the increase in exemplary damages under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102 because the company did not have an opportunity to develop a complete record during trial on the reasons for its failure to implement a periodic pole inspection program.
|
|||||
| Hamon Contrs., Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc., Court of Appeals Nos. 07CA0987, 07CA0988 & 07CA2342,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SEVEN, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a project administrator and an engineer on a general contractor's post-contractual claims for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation because such claims were not independent of the contract with the City and were barred by the economic loss rule.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. N.D.C., Court of Appeals No. 08CA2304,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was vacated and remanded, because failure to file the notices or the return receipt cards required under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C.S. §§ 1901 to 1963, with the court was not harmless error, when the record did not show the Indian tribe was informed of all relevant facts about tribal membership.
|
|||||
| People v. Dunlap, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2403,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and theft, the presentence report stated that $ 1,400 in restitution was due. The Court of Appeals of Colorado held that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not fix the amount of restitution; he was entitled to post-conviction relief under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c).
|
|||||
| People v. Keene, Court of Appeals No. 08CA2189,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant caused submission of a victim through the actual application of physical force or physical violence, because the victim awoke to defendant having sex with her and tried to escape the alleged assault, and the victim told defendant to stop, but he did not acknowledge her.
|
|||||
| People v. Tuffo, Court of Appeals No. 08CA0578,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A remand after defendant was found to have been a sexually violent predator under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-414.5(1)(a) was proper because the SVP determination did not satisfy statutory and due process requirements. The district court never made specific findings on contested issues, including whether defendant had failed first grade.
|
|||||
| Stuart v. N. Shore Water & Sanitation Dist., Court of Appeals No. 08CA1298,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in its award of attorney fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-35-402(1)(f), because the water and sanitation district prevailed on the only claim it asserted, and obtained both legal and equitable relief.
|
|||||
| Stumpf v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No. 08CA1036,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, April 30, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Invalidation of license revocation order was reversed and remanded, because the Colorado Department of Revenue was required to revoke the licenses of suspected drunk drivers who refused the request of blood or breath testing within a reasonable time.
|
|||||
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. |
