|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Colorado - October 16, 2008
|
| |
Consumer Crusade, Inc. v. Clarion Mortg. Capital, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 07CA0924,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Sanctions could be imposed upon plaintiff under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-17-102 (2008) despite district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate underlying merits of action brought under Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.S. ¿ 227, because plaintiff's claim was groundless and its conduct was substantially vexatious.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gln Compliance Group, Inc. v. Aviation Manual Solutions, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1563,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a case alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets, a settlement agreement should not have been enforced against a corporation because the elements of Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-22-208 were not satisfied; moreover, certain evidence was erroneously considered because it constituted mediation communications that were subject to a privilege.
|
|
| |
|
| |
People v. Gosselin, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's statements were voluntary under the Fifth Amendment because the interrogation was not unduly long, the officers made no promises or threats to defendant, there was no display of weapons, no coercive tactics were used, the interrogation was carried out in a conversational tone, and the officers believed defendant was trying to cooperate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|