 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Loveland Police Dep't v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that police captain's mental impairment and suicide were work related where captain was tasked with stressful job of disciplining officers involved in prostitution sting and in performing the work of three captains. Thus, widow was entitled to benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-41-301(2), 8-42-114.
|
|||||
| Crandall v. City & County of Denver, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1989,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the notice filed by plaintiffs substantially complied with the requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-109(2) (2005) and informed defendant city of a potential class action, plaintiffs' notice satisfied the requirements of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-101 et seq. (2005).
|
|||||
| Dicocco v. Nat'l Gen. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2589,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's suit against his auto insurer was properly dismissed as unripe; under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-707(3) (repealed), insurer was excess insurer for purposes of claim for PIP benefits, as insured's car was not involved in accident where car struck insured while he was walking, and he did not show that excess policy was likely to be reached.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Campbell, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 18, 2006, Announced
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court determined appellee husband's filing of bankruptcy was valid and not motivated by a desire to minimize the value of the marital property, the action had to be remanded for reconsideration because the trial court did not explicitly address appellant wife's contention that husband depleted or dissipated the marital estate.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Cooprider, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0143,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 18, 2006, Announced
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's denial, as untimely, a father's motion for district court review of a magistrate judge's order modifying child support was vacated, and the case was remanded because the district court erred in concluding that the father did not seek an extension of time to submit a Colo. R. Magis. 7 motion for review.
|
|||||
| N. Ave. Ctr. L.L.C v. City of Grand Junction, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0986,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's order dismissing the developers' appeal of the denial of their request for a variance for lack of jurisdiction was reversed, and the case was remanded because the city's charter, as written, did not grant jurisdiction to the city's municipal court to hear the appeal under the code.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. D.G., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother was only allowed to write letters to her children while in a community corrections facility, it was error to terminate her parental rights because she was never afforded the opportunity to have personal, face-to-face visitation with her children to demonstrate that she could become a good parent under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-208.
|
|||||
| People v. Bottenfield, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1435,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for felony menacing-domestic violence and third degree assault was affirmed because even if defendant had not waived the right to contest the manner in which the sentence was imposed, defendant's prior convictions constituted a Blakely-exempt factor, sufficient to support the imposition of an aggravated sentence.
|
|||||
| People v. Schupper, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1224,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the court was persuaded by authority from other jurisdictions that an application for court-appointed counsel constituted part of an official proceeding for purposes of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-501(3), the trial court erred in dismissing the charge of first degree perjury against defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
