 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.R. Horton, Inc. v. D&S Landscaping, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0890,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of the subcontractors was affirmed because the developer produced a witness who did not have knowledge about the matters relating to the claims, and the trial court did not err in focusing on the developer's Colo. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee's lack of knowledge in concluding that there were no triable issues.
|
|||||
| Hall v. Frankel, Court of Appeals Nos. 05CA2696 & 06CA1774, Court of Appeals Nos. 06CA0585 & 06CA0946,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-64-401 precluded an expert in one medical specialty from testifying against a physician in another specialty, no violation occurred because the expert witnesses established that the standard of care for diagnosing and treating blood clots was identical regardless of specialty and was common to all physicians.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Newell, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate ultimately found parenting time plan proposed by special master was not in the child's best interests and evidence supported modification, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-131. Under Colo. Const. art. II, § 10, magistrate had to reconsider whether restrictions on father's right to communicate with third parties regarding child were warranted.
|
|||||
| New Design Constr. Co. v. Hamon Contrs. Inc., Court of Appeals No. 06CA2011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied contractor's motions for dismiss and directed verdict as company was not required to exhaust administrative remedies, and it had jurisdiction and properly considered company's breach of contract claims. Under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-106, penalty interest accrued postjudgment and during appeal and surety could be liable.
|
|||||
| People v. Hopkins, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0662,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Harsher sentence imposed on remand was improper under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-409(3) because the court did not rely on defendant's conduct after imposition of the original sentence or any other subsequent aggravating factors but imposed a sentence based upon what it would have done if it had been the original sentencing court.
|
|||||
| People v. Linares-Guzman, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2445,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were affirmed because the jury unanimously agreed that defendant intended to commit aggravated robbery upon entry into the victims' home, and any error in the failure to give a unanimity jury instruction was not plain error since there was no reasonable possibility that any error contributed to defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
| Ranta Constr. Inc. v. Anderson, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0032,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In home construction dispute, trial court properly found that owners breached a contract because owners prevented repairs to defective windows and stopped work. Owners were barred from revoking their acceptance or asserting a breach of warranty claim against vendor because, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-608, owners reaccepted the windows.
|
|||||
| Rhino Fund, LLLP v. Hutchins, Court of Appeals No. 06CA 1172,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Manager was liable for conversion and civil theft, because the investor agreement was unenforceable to the extent that it purported to exempt the manager from personal tort liability, when the manager made false statements to induce the loan, and commingled the collateral proceeds that should have been placed in an escrow account.
|
|||||
| Zweygardt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of the County of Elbert, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2197,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 26, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to county on landowners' action where, if landowners' property traversed by private access road satisfied the "farms or ranches" exception of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-15-401.5(6), and the fundamental character of the land did not change, then the county could not regulate the road to comply with its fire code.
|
|||||
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. |
