 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 00CA2242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer and insurer not required to file a cost bond in a worker's compensation appeal, as the Colorado Appellate Rules of Procedure distinguished appeals in "civil cases" from appeals from state agencies.
|
|||||
| Antelope Co. v. Mobil Rocky Mt., Inc., Court of Appeals No. 99CA2366,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to transform the motion in limine hearing into a summary judgment hearing, and the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded defendant from relitigating the issue of the ambiguity of the parties' agreement.
|
|||||
| Miller v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As employer and insurer's failure to pay employee's workers' compensation benefits was both wrongful and unjust at the time it was withheld, the assessment of a penalty was appropriate.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzales, Court of Appeals No. 99CA2493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because premium on bond was erroneously paid by third party who was not a defendant in the case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the return of the premium by the appellant surety and its agent.
|
|||||
| People v. Pineda, Court of Appeals No. 98CA1623,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for child abuse was affirmed where prosecutor could challenge for cause a juror with attention deficit disorder, child abuse statute was not overly vague, and defendant had a duty to prevent husband from beating the victim.
|
|||||
| Rocky Mt. Rhino Lining v. Rhino Linings United States, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Product distributor established a proper claim against product manufacturer under state consumer protection statute, as product manufacturer's deceptive trade practices had a significant public impact.
|
|||||
| Zivian v. Brooke-Hitching, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0009,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, May 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly elected to the town council because she did not lose Colorado residency by temporarily going to New York.
|
|||||
| People v. Mercer, Case No.: 00PDJ009,
Supreme Court of Colorado, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, May 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disciplinary charges brought against attorney were dismissed. It could not be concluded that attorney represented clients with conflicting interests, or that he facilitated a client's violation of a visitation order.
|
|||||
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. |
