 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carothers v. Archuleta County Sheriff, Court of Appeals Nos.: 04CA0762 & 04CA0998,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where orders denying dismissal of claims arising from dog-bite injuries were erroneously certified for appeal, appellate court had limited jurisdiction. Although willful conduct claim based on vicarious liability against sheriff should have been dismissed, breach of contract claim survived because Colorado's Governmental Immunity Act did not apply.
|
|||||
| Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0975,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Client's appeal of summary judgment was frivolous under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102(4) because client's brief failed comply with Colo. App. R. 28 by setting forth a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority; thus former attorney was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Colo. App. R. 38(d) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-103.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of J.M.H., Court of Appeals No. 04CA0740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in holding that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-108(1)(b) required judicial approval of marriage license where a 15-year-old girl had obtained her mother's consent. Because minor was old enough to give consent at common law, remand of judgment declaring the marriage invalid was required to determine if couple had a common law marriage.
|
|||||
| Lattany v. Garcia, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1768,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of city's motion to intervene pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) was abuse of discretion; because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-110(1.5)(a) required that the court hearing the underlying action had to award attorney fees upon request, it provided for intervention as of right, and city's request for intervention was timely.
|
|||||
| Park Rise Homeowners Ass'n v. Resource Constr. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0091,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directed verdict in favor of a contractor was improper where expert testimony was sufficient to allow a jury to determine latent construction defects and to apportion damages between a contractor and a settling developer; dismissal of Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim was proper where statements of "quality construction" were mere puffing.
|
|||||
| Pollock v. Highlands Ranch Cmty. Ass'n, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a mother had signed a waiver of prospective claims, a child injured in a fall from a rock climbing wall was entitled to pursue his claim because it accrued before Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-107, permitting such waivers, became effective. Thus, retrospective application was improper under Colo. Const. art. II, § 11.
|
|||||
| Resources One, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1240,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In worker's compensation dispute, the employer was liable for all of the claimant's medical and temporary disability benefits, under full responsibility rule, because right of apportionment was not embodied in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-41-301(1)(c) and it was not available under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-101(1)(a).
|
|||||
| Vill. Homes of Colo., Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1396,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it held there was coverage under comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies and insurer was liable to indemnify insured home builder $ 200,000 for claims against it by homeowners that the builder had paid because insurer stipulated there was property damage to homes resulting from an occurrence during policy period.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
