 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Reed, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2206,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Uncertainty in the restrictive covenant's use of the term "one story" rendered it unenforceable when applied to the owners' addition, because the failure to prescribe any numerical measure for the maximum "height" of a story rendered the language of the covenant susceptible of more than one interpretation.
|
|||||
| Borrayo v. Lefever, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a trial court erred by failing to set a hearing on an exemption in a writ of garnishment action under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54.5-109(1)(a) and Colo. R. Civ. P. 103(6)(c)(1), the error was harmless because funds in a bank account from a workers' compensation claim were not exempt under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-124(1).
|
|||||
| Harwood v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1925,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a telephone opinion poll that was conducted did not seek to influence voters or sway public opinion, but instead asked neutral questions to collect data and measure public opinion, the poll was not electioneering and thus did not constitute "electioneering communication" under Colo. Const. art. XXVIII.
|
|||||
| Hollis v. Davidson, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2455,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by refusing award attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988 in a 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 case filed against secretary of state regarding election practices in Colorado because the constitutional claims of two candidates were substantial; they were not wholly frivolous, and they did not conflict with United States Supreme Court decisions.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Yates, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1310,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly applied Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-124 in ordering child to live with wife because, although the wife had been charged with felony menacing and misdemeanor child abuse after threatening the husband with knife, evaluators opined that husband likely had been perpetrator of spousal abuse during marriage.
|
|||||
| Kaercher v. Sater, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2415,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had not erred in concluding that because automobile insurer complied with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-609 by offering and providing maximum UM/UIM coverage required by statute, agent had no common law duty to offer insured higher UM/UIM coverage consistent with insured's liability coverage and insurer was entitled to judgment as matter of law.
|
|||||
| People v. Hammas, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of possession of a schedule II controlled substance was affirmed because the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, when the officer's seizure of the bag and its contents fell within the plain view exception of the warrant requirement.
|
|||||
| People v. Kinney, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0781,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for sexual assault was proper because the trial court excused a juror on the basis of hardship under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-71-121. The juror was a teacher, could not get a substitute for more than three days, and was required to do assessment testing that a substitute could not have done.
|
|||||
| People v. Vasquez, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1821,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a second degree murder case, a trial court erred by limiting a jury's consideration of self-defense principals to only those involving deadly physical force under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-901(3)(d) because an intent element was a necessary ingredient thereof; defendant testified that he was unaware that he had pulled a knife and stabbed a victim.
|
|||||
| Proactive Techs., Inc. v. Denver Place Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2613,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly ruled consequential damages were not recoverable under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-507(1) (now Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-9-625), and thus, a lessee who was in default was not entitled to damages for alleged lost profits in its claim that the lessor failed to dispose of the lessee's collateral in a commercially reasonable manner.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
