 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Leverage Leasing Co. v. Smith, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an allegedly fraudulent transfer action, husband's transfer of couple's home back to wife was fraudulent and in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-8-105(1)(b), which did not require proof of intent, because transfer was not done for consideration; there was no exchange of reasonably equivalent value.
|
|||||
| McClintic v. Hesse, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0068,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collision between a driver and a motorist on highway occurred after driver slowed when she spotted bighorn sheep in a lane in front of her. Jury wrongfully held driver was at fault because she did not breach duty, and she drove as a reasonably prudent person would. Nothing supported use of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1103 as basis for negligence.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. A.J., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Colo. App. R. 3.4(b)(3) prohibited extending deadline for filing notice of appeal in dependency and neglect cases based on excusable neglect, under very specific circumstances, it did not preclude an appellate court from exercising its discretion under Colo. App. R. 2 and 26(b) to retain jurisdiction over late-filed appeal for good cause.
|
|||||
| People v. Holwuttle, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1163,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed defendant's convictions of unlawful sexual contact with force and unlawful sexual contact, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-404 (2005), and his sentences therefor because, in part, jury instructions were adequate and proper, Colo. R. Crim. P. 25 did not apply to resentencing proceedings, and his sentences did not violate equal protection.
|
|||||
| People v. Kendrick, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant sought postconviction relief, pursuant to a Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(c) motion; however, motion was properly denied because right to impartial jury at sentencing only addressed that portion of sentence that subjected defendant to incarceration, and defendant's sentence was within presumptive range for violent crime.
|
|||||
| People v. King, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0568,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed defendant's conviction of second degree assault, second degree kidnapping, and attempted sexual assault, and his sentence imposed in accordance with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-402(6) (2005) and Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-1001 (2005); in part, enhanced sentence was proper based on prior conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Watts, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0731,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant entered guilty plea to vehicular assault, in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-205; his constitutional right to jury trial at sentencing was not violated by trial court's imposition of aggravated sentence because fact that defendant caused serious bodily injury to another was an offense element, and there were two victims in this case.
|
|||||
| Town of Foxfield v. Archdiocese of Denver, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0202,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In archdiocese's challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance which restricted parking that affected church property, summary judgment in favor of the Town was error as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the merits of the archdiocese's 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc claim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
