 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brody v. Hellman, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2017,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding 30 percent contingency fee in common fund case because, inter alia, review of comparable settlements revealed that percentage of the common funded awarded was reasonable and a contingent fee was designed to be greater than the reasonable value of the services based on risk undertaken by counsel.
|
|||||
| Cont'l Divide Ins. Co. v. Dickinson, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0256,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an independent contractor (IC) was injured while an employer's employee was driving the IC's truck, the IC was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits, because, inter alia, the Workers' Compensation Act limited his recovery since he failed to obtain his own workers' compensation insurance and the tortfeasor was in the same employ as the IC.
|
|||||
| Dave Peterson Elec., Inc. v. Beach Mt. Builders, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0426,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in applying the builder's defense of claim preclusion to the claimant's mechanic's lien claim because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-22-124 permitted mechanic's liens to coexist with other kinds of relief and thereby barred application of claim preclusion.
|
|||||
| Estes Park Chamber of Commerce v. Town of Estes Park, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0953,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred when it determined that a statutory town's broad-based marketing and referral enterprises were authorized by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-15-901(1)(b) because neither § 31-15-901(1)(b) nor Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-15-101(2) authorized a statutory town to conduct marketing activities beyond the narrow scope of advertising.
|
|||||
| Fifth Third Bank v. Jones, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0296,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of the debtor on the bank's attempted foreclosure of a deed of trust was affirmed because the bank lost the check before it was submitted for payment, the check was "taken for" the debtor's obligation without regard to the bank's internal procedures, and the bank took the check within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-3-310(a).
|
|||||
| Massingill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a driver excluded from coverage due to a poor driving record was driving during an accident, the insurer properly denied plaintiffs' UM/UIM claims because, pursuant to the driver exclusion statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-721(1), the insurer could exclude the driver from UM/UIM coverage without violating public policy.
|
|||||
| Munger v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0101,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for insurer was reversed as written offer of enhanced PIP coverage under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-710(2)(a) made by insurer to driver's father was not sufficient under Parfrey as written information provided by insurer lacked clarity and specificity required to permit father to make informed decision on whether to purchase coverage.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. J.C.S., Court of Appeals No. 06CA1868,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mother, whose parental rights were terminated, lacked standing to raise due process challenge to statute authorizing service by single publication, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-502(8)(b), because lack of notice which caused her to lose custody resulted from her actions in concealing herself from law enforcement, so her claimed injury was self-inflicted.
|
|||||
| People v. Johnson, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1782,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, July 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed 10 counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-405.3(1), (2)(b) (2006), against defendant because although he had been the victim's driving instructor, there was no evidence that he was in position of trust with the victim "at the time of the unlawful act."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
