 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. City of Westminster, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the essence of the employee's claim against the city was that he suffered economic losses arising from the city's breach of the employment contract when it refused to provide him health insurance benefits, the claim could not lie in tort under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 24-10-101, et seq. (2004).
|
|||||
| Aspen Petroleum Prods., Inc. v. Zedan, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0426,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute over unpaid invoices, plaintiff served defendants with requests for admissions, pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 36. Requests were mistakenly drafted; they could not be used by defendants to show that there was a zero balance after a certain date because the requesting party, in this case plaintiff, could not be bound by the requests.
|
|||||
| Byrd v. Stavely, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0450,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly determined that Sixth Amendment guaranteed jury trials to plaintiffs who were charged with driving while ability impaired (DWAI) because the offense was a "serious offense," not a "petty offense," under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 16-10-109(1) (2004). First-time DWAI offenders were treated as though offense was serious under Sixth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Estate of McIntyre v. Lionsridge #4 Homeowner's Ass'n, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2382,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff residential housing development lot owners' declaratory judgment action involving the interpretation of restrictive covenants on their lot, the trial court properly ruled in favor of the homeowners association as the second of three versions of a declaration of protective covenants prohibited subdivision of the lot.
|
|||||
| Hepp v. Boulder County Assessor, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2055,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a taxpayer's challenge to the classification and valuation of property on which there had been mining operations, the trial court erred in reclassifying and revaluing the land as agricultural as the taxpayer failed to meet the criteria for establishing qualifying conservation practices under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I) (2004).
|
|||||
| Leske v. Golder, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1972,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sexual assault of a child case, defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-45-101 (2004) was properly denied as the suppression of evidence issues he raised were not habeas claims, and his claims regarding his conviction and sentence had already been ruled on adversely to him in previous motions and appeals.
|
|||||
| McLane W., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No. 03CA2471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a corporation's challenge to the constitutionality of the excise tax imposed by Colorado on certain tobacco products under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 39-28.5 (2004), the supreme court determined that it did not violate the Commerce Clause of U.S. Const. art. I, ¿ 8, cl. 3 as it did not have the effect of discriminating against out-of-state competitors.
|
|||||
| Mosley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2485,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the claimant's request for the assessment of penalties against the Colorado Insurance Guaranty Association (CIGA) was proper where CIGA was immune from such penalties pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 10-4-517 (2004).
|
|||||
| People v. Chavez, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2427,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 5, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a felony menacing and second degree assault case, the trial court properly denied defendant's motions for presentence confinement credit as the time defendant was subject to electronic monitoring and a curfew did not so limit his liberty as to constitute confinement under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-1.3-405 (2004).
|
|||||
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. |
