 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Board of County Comm'rs v. County Rd. Users Ass'n, No. 99SC489,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Association and individuals were not entitled to compel county government to submit an initiative proposal regarding a sales tax to the electorate, because county had a duty to review initiatives for procedural compliance.
|
|||||
| City of Colorado Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., No. 99SC200,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The plain language of petitioners' zoning ordinance was not capricious and arbitrary, and allowed the zoning authorities to review and deny a permitted use as it was defined and treated in the zoning ordinance.
|
|||||
| Grynberg v. Agri Tech, Inc., No. 99SC399,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Investors were barred from bringing negligence claim against corporations based upon economic loss because corporations' duty of care was created through contract between the parties; no independent duty of care existed under tort law.
|
|||||
| Keller v. People, No. 99SC270,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the plea agreement between the parties did not prohibit the petitioner from seeking a reduction in sentence under state statute, the court-ordered reduction of the sentence was not a breach of the plea agreement.
|
|||||
| L. L. v. People (In re R. W.), No. 99SC799,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Custody order in dependency and neglect case, based on preponderance of evidence, did not fully terminate mother's parental rights, so did not violate due process; clear and convincing standard only applied to permanent termination.
|
|||||
| People v. Antonio-Antimo, No. 99SC384,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a legal plea bargain was enforced by means of an illegal sentence, the proper remedy was to modify the illegal sentence but permit the valid and enforceable plea agreement to stand.
|
|||||
| People v. Banks, No. 99SC225,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly applied the extraordinary risk sentencing provision because respondent was not charged with a crime of violence involving serious bodily injury or death, or using, or possessing and threatening to use, a deadly weapon.
|
|||||
| People v. Johnson, No. 99SC780,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second sentence of six years' incarceration did not violate his original plea agreement not to exceed six years because the mandatory probation period was separate and distinct from the sentence imposed by the trial court.
|
|||||
| Ryals v. St. Mary-Corwin Regional Med. Ctr., No. 99SC137,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neurologist denied privileges to read MRI images by hospital because of its exclusive contract with radiologists was not denied access to the courts in his antitrust, contract, and tort action; hospital denial was not based on peer review.
|
|||||
| Town of Alma v. Azco Construction, Inc., No. 99SC424,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, September 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Economic loss rule barred town from recovering from company for leaks in a water distribution system, installed by company, where town failed to demonstrate company breached a duty independent of its contractual obligations.
|
|||||
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. |
