 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colo. Cmty. Health Network v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: H.B. 04-1455 (Colo. 2005) was constitutional because it did not conflict with Amendment 35 to the Colorado Constitution; although Amendment 35 provided that the revenues generated from it would be used to "expand" health-related programs and services, it did not restrict the General Assembly's ability to change the amount of appropriations.
|
|||||
| Kenna v. Huber, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0608,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colorado Department of Revenue could not rely on a regulation to require tenants in common to split a conservation easement income tax credit because the 1999 version of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-22-522(2) did not require such a split, and the Department's attempt to alter the meaning of § 39-22-522 by regulation was void.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. C.H., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1567,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother asserted that her former attorney was ineffective for failing to call her therapist to testify during termination of parental rights hearing. Based on an offer of proof, the mother's ineffective assistance of counsel allegation warranted further inquiry by trial court. Thus, case was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. M.A.M., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1961,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although counsel's misunderstanding of the law did not constitute excusable neglect for failing to file a petition for review of a magistrate's delinquency decision in 15 days under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-108(5)(a), certain factors should have been considered in deciding whether inexcusable neglect constituted good cause to extend the filing time.
|
|||||
| People v. Sisson, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0489,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief under Colo. R. Crim. P. 35 should have been granted in a case where a trial court sua sponte vacated a suspended portion of a sentence because an inmate had a liberty interest in the potentially reduced sentence; the mandatory language permitted suspension upon successful completion of a sex offender program.
|
|||||
| People v. Williams, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0073,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In drug case, trial court erred by admitting laboratory report without testimony of Colorado Bureau of Investigations agent who conducted testing as specific requirement in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-309(5) that testing technician be made available at trial upon timely request overrode business records exception to hearsay rule, Colo. R. Evid. 803(6).
|
|||||
| Safari 300, Ltd. v. Hamilton Family Enters., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0065,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation, which was under contract to operate a shooting range in a state park, was not a state employee entitled to protection under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-101 (2006) et seq.; a corporation could not be a public employee entitled to immunity under the CGIA.
|
|||||
| Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0083,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a battered women shelter's address was made public and sold by a phone company, the filed tariff doctrine under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-3-103 barred negligence claims because tariffs stated that it was a customer's duty to ensure that the information remained nonpublished; the tariffs also limited any other potential liability to zero.
|
|||||
| Skyland Metro. Dist. v. Mt. West Enter., LLC, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2605,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment enforcing special districts' liens against developers was reversed in part because no availability of service or facilities fees (ASF) were owed for two years since a district's lease purchase agreement could not properly be used to calculate ASF because it was not indebtedness under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 32-1-1006(1)(h)(I)(C) and (E).
|
|||||
| Sotelo v. Hutchens Trucking Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court did not dismiss the entire action against appellant trucking company under Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (the trial court granted the trucking company's motion to dismiss the tort claims, but declined to dismiss its breach of contract claim), it properly declined to award attorney fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-201.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
