 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Scott v. Scott, Case No. 05SC199,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals that found that respondent's order was a timely appeal from a final order, pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 54(b), was affirmed because Rule 54(b) applied to probate proceedings and the probate court's order had resolved all of the issues concerning the claims raised in the one particular proceeding.
|
|||||
| Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp., Case No. 04SC547,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court had authority, pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Declaratory Judgment Law (CUDJL), Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-51-101 to 13-15-115, to consider a declaratory judgment action based upon an oral agreement between the parties when consideration of the matter would resolve the controversy between the parties.
|
|||||
| People v. Doyle, Case Number: 05PDJ034, (consolidated with 05PDJ059),
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, June 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney was ordered disbarred because there was sufficient evidence presented that the attorney knowingly converted and misappropriated client funds for the attorney's own use and without the client's authorization. The attorney also repeatedly failed to deal diligently and honestly with clients.
|
|||||
| People v. Doyle, 05PDJ034.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, June 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Smith, 04PDJ108.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, June 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Ungar, 05PDJ076.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Colorado General Assembly v. Owens, Case No. 04SC816,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While definitional headnotes in long bills were not "items" subject to the governor's item veto power, the trial judgment for governor upholding governor's item veto under Colo. Const. art. IV, § 12 was upheld because the headnotes violated separation of powers by intruding on authority of executive branch to administer the laws.
|
|||||
| Gonzalez-Estay v. Lamm (In re Title & Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #55), Case No. 06SA20,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title to Initiative #55, seeking to prohibit State and political subdivisions, from providing non-emergency services to persons not lawfully in Colorado, contained multiple subjects in violation of Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-40-106 as it presented two unrelated and incongruous purposes; therefore, title could not be set.
|
|||||
| Harmony Ditch Co. v. Ground Water Mgmt. Subdistrict (In re Application for Water Rights), Case No. 05SA205,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Water court did not err by imposing a duty of curtailment on the state engineer in the language of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-305(8) because it complied with the mandate of the statute, and should a party suffer injury as a result of the state engineer's attempt to comply with his obligation, avenues existed to challenge the scope of his authority.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
