 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Brighton v. Palizzi, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1343,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In eminent domain action under Colo. Const. art. II, § 15, district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that valued entire parcels as developed mixed-use, and valued strip of land that city sought to acquire in accordance with average per square foot value of entire parcels as so developed. Strip did not have same value as rest.
|
|||||
| Long View Sys. Corp. USA v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo., Court of Appeals No. 07CA2284,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although parties' consulting agreement did not create rebuttable presumption on independent contractor relationship under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115(2) (2008), evidence was also insufficient to establish that claimant was employee of company for purposes of Colorado Employment Security Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-70-101 to -143 (2008).
|
|||||
| People ex rel. L.O.L., Court of Appeals No. 08CA0402,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since more than 10 days had elapsed after receipt of notice of possible Indian heritage and no tribe indicated that child was an Indian child, trial court erred by using ICWA standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt under 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(f) in termination of parental rights case, and clear and convincing burden of proof should have been used.
|
|||||
| People v. Carr, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1799,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA) speedy trial right was violated since his acquiescence to trial date after UMDDA 180-day period expired did not meet express waiver requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-14-104(2) as he was not advised that his assent to trial date would constitute waiver of his speedy trial right.
|
|||||
| People v. Cooper, Court of Appeals No. 07CA0505,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not have the authority under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-801(1.5) to sentence defendant as habitual offender for class six felony of aggravated motor vehicle theft because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401(1)(a)(V)(A) provided that maximum sentence for class six felony was 18 months; defendant's sentence of four and one-half years was reversed.
|
|||||
| People v. Gonzales-Quevedo, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2434,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence that defendant suffered from antisocial personality disorder (APD) because defendant initially pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), and proof that defendant suffered from APD was relevant to rebut a defense of NGRI.
|
|||||
| People v. Griego, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2609,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In aggravated felony theft case, trial court did not err in resentencing defendant to nine-years after she was terminated from community corrections program as defendant's plea agreement contained no explicit language covering her termination from program and trial court was no longer bound by terms of agreement, including six-year sentencing cap.
|
|||||
| People v. Hodge, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was entitled to a hearing on his motion seeking to withdraw a guilty plea because the advisement he received under Colo. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(4) was defective, he was not charged with knowledge of the sentencing consequences of his probationary status, and the inmate stated he chose to plead guilty based on the erroneous advisement.
|
|||||
| People v. Romero, Court of Appeals No. 07CA1652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, October 30, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee of a community corrections facility was an employee of a public law enforcement agency within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-103(1)(k) and Colo. R. Crim. P. 24(b)(1)(XII), and therefore district court erred by denying defendant's challenge for cause to juror who worked as a security specialist at a community corrections facility.
|
|||||
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. |
