 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anstine v. Alexander, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1037,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that attorneys did not commit legal malpractice did not foreclose possibility that they aided and abetted client company's president in breach of fiduciary duty. However, aiding and abetting elements did not, as a matter of law, include elements necessary to find joint liability with president under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5(4)
|
|||||
| Awad v. Breeze, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2374,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because claims against professors and surgeons for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with contractual relations did not allege activities that directly related to the primary purpose of a hospital, sovereign immunity was not waived pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-106(1)(b) (2004).
|
|||||
| Conoco, Inc. v. Tinklenberg, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1576,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Waste gas produced was subject to a use tax under Commerce City, Colo., Sales & Use Tax Code & Regs. § 20-1(1-1) because it was intentionally used for heating purposes, even though it was an unwanted by-product of refining crude oil. No interest was payable to an unsuccessful party under Commerce City, Colo., Sales & Use Tax Code & Regs. § 20-12-4.
|
|||||
| Gavrilis v. Gavrilis, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2244,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly awarded to a husband in a wife's action for damages based on an approximately $ 870,000 discrepancy between the income the husband reported on the parties' tax return and what he reported on his financial affidavit in their marital dissolution proceeding because claim preclusion barred the damages action.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Bolding-Roberts, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1010,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in its treatment of the adoption subsidy under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115(13)(b) (2004) when it subtracted the adoption subsidy from the mother's income, thereby increasing the father's child support as it did not need to consider whether the adoption subsidy reduced the child's basic needs.
|
|||||
| People v. Benson, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2246,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the statutory elements of cultivation of marihuana and possession of eight or more ounces of marihuana under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-18-406(3)(b), (8)(a)(I) (2004) were not identical, defendant's convictions did not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| People v. Lassek, Court of Appeals No.: 02CA2142,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's sentence did not exceed the cap in his plea bargain, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(1) (2004) precluded review of nonconstitutional challenges to defendant's sentence. Defendant had no constitutional right of confrontation in a sentencing proceeding, and the receipt of victim character evidence did not violate due process.
|
|||||
| People v. Prieto, Court of Appeals No.: 02CA2093,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that felony first degree murder, a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-102(1)(b) (2004), carried a greater punishment than vehicular homicide, a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-106 (2004), did not violate defendant's Colo. Const. art. II, § 25 right to equal protection because felony murder had graver societal consequences.
|
|||||
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. |
