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.
	State Courts - Colorado - May 14, 2007
	Droste v. Bd. of County Comm'rs , Case No. 05SC823, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, May 14, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Respondent county had the authority to adopt a 10-month moratorium, confirmed by a public hearing, on land use application reviews pursuant to the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-20-101 to 29-20-107 (2006), while it prepared its master plan. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Dunlap v. People, Case No. 04SA218, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, May 14, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: In a death penalty case, counsel was not deficient, Sixth Amendment, for failing to obtain an independent mental health evaluation because presenting a mental health mitigation case would have been risky at best given the substantial amount of damaging evidence from the mental health institute that the State had to rebut defendant's claims. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	People v. Castro, Case No. 07SA41, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, May 14, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Motion to suppress evidence was improperly granted in a drug case because there was no showing that defendant's consent to search a vehicle was given involuntarily; the testimony of a bi-lingual officer was not necessary to prove the State's case because defendant was able to speak English well enough to adequately respond to questioning. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.