 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Vandemoer, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite a county's broad authority over its roads, a resolution prohibiting the movement of agricultural sprinkler systems across roads was invalid because it conflicted with a strong state interest in promoting agriculture and husbandry. Also, movement of the sprinkler was not a nuisance.
|
|||||
| Brody v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals Nos. 07CA0940 & 07CA1512,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following a jury verdict against an insurer for breach of contract, attorney fees were properly awarded to an insured in the amount of her contingent fee agreement because the unambiguous language of § 10-4-708(1.7)(c)(III) of the repealed Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act mandated only an award of actual, reasonable attorney fees.
|
|||||
| Chandler-Mcphail v. Duffey, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1670,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice case, a doctor was improperly awarded costs under Colo. R. Civ. P. 54 and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-105 because he was a third-party beneficiary of an insurance contract due to his role as an affiliated physician; the contract altered the Colorado rule allowing prevailing parties to recover costs from their opponents.
|
|||||
| Clubhouse at Fairway Pines v. Fairway Pines Estates Owners Ass'n, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1368,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Homeowners affected by a trial court's determination that a homeowner's association owed dues to the owner and operator of a golf club in the community were indispensable parties to the action under Colo. R. Civ. P. 19(a), and indispensability was not waived by failure to raise it until the case was on appeal.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Roberts, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0903,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A rule change under Colo. R. Civ. P. 16.2(e)(10), which gave a greater remedy to a wife challenging her husband's alleged non-disclosure of assets before a separation agreement, was not unconstitutionally retrospective under Colo. Const. art. II, § 11, simply because it expanded the remedy afforded to the wife.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Schelp, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a nonjury action, the factual findings of a special master that a husband did not disclose a portion of his retirement pension in a marital dissolution and that such non-disclosure materially affected the division of assets were not clearly erroneous and were accepted by an appellate court pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 53(e)(2).
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Licht (In re Estate of Murphy), Court of Appeals No. 07CA0901,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a claimant's petition seeking a determination of her interest in real property was improper because the issue as to whether the claimant was a cotenant with the decedent was a matter over which Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-9-103(1)(h) expressly gave the probate court jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| People v. Prescott, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1380,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence seized from hotel room had to be suppressed under U.S. Const. amend. IV and Colo. Const. art. II, § 7 because defendant's conduct in asking officer for help getting his money back from a woman who answered door did not constitute implied consent where officer entered hotel room without permission before beginning a dialogue with defendant.
|
|||||
| Precious Offerings Mineral Exch., Inc. v. McLain, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1264,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of the property owner was appropriate because an owner of unpatented mining claims did not have standing to bring an action to condemn an easement of necessity. Further, the owner of unpatented mining claims did not establish an easement by implication.
|
|||||
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. |
