 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baseline Farms Two, LLP v. Hennings, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0445,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colorado's Water Quality Act did not provide for private cause of action or injunctive relief. Landowner and developer failed to show injury resulting from neighbor's effluent discharges.
|
|||||
| Chartier v. Weinland Homes, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 00CA0712,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In calculating whether judgment amount exceeded settlement offer that did not exclude costs, trial court properly included pre-offer attorney fees awarded as costs, but erred by failing to exclude post-offer fees awarded as costs.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Burford, Court of Appeals No. 99CA1781,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The property division had to be reconsidered. The increase in appellant's separate property was marital property and his use of marital funds to pay his separate debts substantially increased equity in his separate property.
|
|||||
| In the Marriage of Woolley, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother was given adequate notice of an expert witness and had time to prepare since she waited almost one month to object, the therapist had been treating the daughter for two years, and the therapist had testified at an earlier hearing.
|
|||||
| Lufti v. Brighton Cmty. Hosp. Ass'n, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0245,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor could not prevail under federal discrimination statutes because he was an independent contractor and not an employee of hospital. He failed to prove his contract claims.
|
|||||
| Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, Court of Appeals No. 00CA2099,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent agency properly granted respondent employee partial medical and temporary disability benefits based on an admission of liability; respondent agency properly determined that withdrawal of the admission acted prospectively.
|
|||||
| People v. Davalos, Court of Appeals No. 98CA2352,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: statute of limitations applied to bar restitution order from being applied to criminal acts outside statute of limitations, and thus, the trial court erred in ordering restitution for funds defendant received outside the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| People v. Lunsford, Court of Appeals No. 99CA2274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where record supported trial court's finding that both husband and wife sustained injuries as a result of defendant's conduct, husband's injuries were recoverable in restitution, regardless of whether he was named as victim in charging documents.
|
|||||
| People v. Nix, Court of Appeals Nos. 00CA0053 & 00CA0222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of theft by deception was reversed; a principal residence requirement for public housing assistance was unconstitutionally vague as to defendant, and defendant was eligible to receive food stamps in the forum county.
|
|||||
| Schultz v. Hoffman (In re Estate of Perry), Court of Appeals No. 00CA0651,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 10, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly determined that decedent revoked her will, and denied a petition for probate; as decedent was last seen in possession of the will, there was a presumption that the will was destroyed with intent to revoke.
|
|||||
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. |
