 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass'n, Case No. 03SC842,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In homeowners association's suit against subcontractors, arising out of alleged construction defects, association's negligence claim was not barred by the economic loss rule because case law and the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act recognized independent duty of care, which made the economic loss rule inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Dempsey v. People, Case No. 04SC362,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disruption of lawful assembly law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108, was constitutionally applied because jury was instructed that it must find defendant intended to disrupt political rally and that a significant disruption actually occurred, but there was no evidence that his conduct significantly impaired the rally; thus, his conviction was reversed.
|
|||||
| Grissom v. People , Case No. 03SC792,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under common enterprise cases, a defendant could be held liable for reckless manslaughter as a complicitor; there was evidence to support the reckless manslaughter instruction requested by the defense where defendant did not know the principal's intent and did not intend to aid in the victim's murder.
|
|||||
| Medina v. People, Consolidated Cases Case No. 04SC167, Case No. 04SC334,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Practice of allowing jurors to ask questions of witnesses through trial court under Colorado Jury Reform Pilot Project, which culminated in Colo. R. Crim. P. 24(g), was not per se unconstitutional. While trial court erred in asking investigator how often a witness's story changed, which called for irrelevant expert testimony, answer was harmless.
|
|||||
| Meier v. People, 04PDJ109.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the attorney's verified petition for reinstatement pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 251.29(c) was proper where, however sincere, the attorney's own testimony alone was insufficient to demonstrate rehabilitation. Additionally, mere personal reflection and personal assurances, even if sincere, were also insufficient.
|
|||||
| People v. Wilkerson, Case No. 04SA362,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, June 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In murder trial, defendant proffered testimony from expert in ergonomics about probability that shooting was accidental. District court did not abuse its discretion in precluding testimony, pursuant to Colo. R. Evid. 702, because the testimony lacked foundation; it would have been confusing or misleading, and it would not have been helpful to jury.
|
|||||
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. |
