 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AMCO Ins. Co. v. Sills, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2683,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where buyers sued a seller, a builder, and an employee for construction defects and an insurer was granted a declaratory judgment against the seller and the builder, the employee lacked standing to appeal the declaratory judgment because, inter alia, the judgment did not impose an obligation on him such that he was substantially aggrieved by it.
|
|||||
| Am. Appliances, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employers were liable for claimant's hip replacement as part of its duty under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-101(1) to furnish such medical apparatus reasonably needed to cure and relieve the effects of claimant's work related injury under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-301(1) because the hip prosthesis was an internal apparatus rather than an external device.
|
|||||
| In re Hill, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0003,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A husband's appeal in a marriage dissolution proceeding was dismissed without prejudice where the permanent orders had not resolved the wife's request for the apportionment of attorney fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-119 (2006) and thus, they were not final, appealable orders. The wife had not waived her request for attorney fees.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Sorensen, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0542,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in not holding a hearing on appellant wife's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem necessitated by her mental illness in a domestic relations proceeding; further proceedings were required because a factual question existed as to whether the wife was competent and could adequately direct counsel.
|
|||||
| Kauntz v. HCA-HEALTHONE, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2341,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statutory language of the Colorado Professional Review Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-36.5-101 (2006) et seq., clearly and unambiguously provided immunity from damages for professional review bodies "in any civil action" wherein a professional peer review had been conducted concerning the credentialing decision for the particular physician.
|
|||||
| People v. Asberry, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2431,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in allowing police officers to testify that, based on prior contact, one of the officers believed defendant was violating an area restriction; the testimony was part of the res gestae of the offense, and because the officers did not testify about the nature of the prior contact, the testimony was not unduly inflammatory.
|
|||||
| People v. Cordova, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0515,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of drug possession, sexual assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, defendant waived the absence of signed verdict forms on two counts under Colo. R. Crim. P. 31(a)(3) because he did not object at trial or at sentencing; trial court should have quadrupled the sentence on class two felony drug counts.
|
|||||
| People v. Reyes, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0423,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no dismissal warranted for the failure to notify defendant of two detainers while he was in federal custody because he did not show that any prejudice resulted therefrom; moreover, he was not serving a sentence within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-60-501, art. III(a) since he was in pretrial or presentence confinement.
|
|||||
| People v. Walton, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2262,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) applied to defendant's probation sentence in a county jail because he was convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated for a definable period of time in a penal or correctional institution; although he waived the IAD issue by not raising it at trial, remand was necessary regarding ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| People v. Washington, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1895,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury that defendant was mildly mentally retarded under the law of the case doctrine because the trial court had determined that defendant was mildly mentally retarded solely for the purpose of determining whether he was eligible to receive the death penalty.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
