 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ferla v. Infinity Dev. Assocs., LLC, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0631,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order compelling arbitration was not an appealable interlocutory order under Colorado's Uniform Arbitration Act, so the court dismissed an appeal challenging that order.
|
|||||
| Galvan v. Spanish Peaks Reg'l Health Ctr., Court of Appeals No. 03CA1243,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's race discrimination claim was not barred by statute of limitations because her sole remedy was in district court and two-year statute applied. The six-month limitations statute governed filing of complaint with state commission.
|
|||||
| People v. Frantz, Court of Appeals No. 02CA0463,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted for intent to manufacture a controlled substance analog by possessing cold medicine, where it was shown that the medicine was converted to an extract to be used to make methamphetamine.
|
|||||
| People v. Hung Ma, Court of Appeals No. 02CA1848,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded to determine whether preponderance of evidence standard was met, because prosecution was required to show that prior acts of domestic violence occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, but an evidentiary hearing was not required.
|
|||||
| People v. Kyle, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1221,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence after being convicted of sexual assault was improper where the jury's verdict could have been based on a predicate act of sexual assault that preceded the Colorado Sex Offender's Lifetime Supervision Act's enactment date.
|
|||||
| People v. Moore, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1760,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who weighed 300 pounds, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and assault, after he killed his wife by sitting on her. Trial court did not err in admitting prior domestic violence convictions without cautionary instructions.
|
|||||
| People v. Roy, Court of Appeals No. 02CA0590,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court approved a plea bargain, including a penalty, it became bound by that agreement and was obligated to enforce the plea terms. Defendant's conviction was vacated, and the trial court was ordered to enforce the plea agreement.
|
|||||
| People v. Valenzuela, Court of Appeals No. 02CA2043,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal of defendant from sex offender intensified supervision probation to intensified supervision probation was proper, because the probation department refused to allow the commencement of treatment and the public was adequately protected.
|
|||||
| WRWC, LLC v. City of Arvada & Avset Mgmt. Servs., LLC, Court of Appeals No. 03CA0445,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, July 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment in an easement dispute between two neighboring property owners. One owner, a corporation, owned water rights, but these rights did not entitle it to use a road easement.
|
|||||
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. |
