Colorado, October, 2009, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Colorado - October 13, 2009

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeWitt, Case No. 08SC308, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: When an insurer, as a subrogee, brought a negligence claim against a driver and vehicle owner, a trial court did not err in denying the insurer's motion to strike the jury because the matter was not a claim in equity; rather, it was contractual in nature.

Search Cases for Free

B.B. & C. P'ship v. Respondent: the Edelweiss Condo. Ass'n, Case No. 08SC384, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a dispute between a partnership and a condominium association, trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a partnership with respect adverse possession claim of unrestricted fee simple estate in a parking space because condominium's declaration prohibited sale or lease of the parking space to a third party who was not a condominium owner.

Search Cases for Free

Bd. of County Comm'rs of Adams v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't., Case No. 07SC977, Case No. 07SC978, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's issued radioactive materials license and a hazardous waste permit, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. ? 24-60-2202. Intermediate appellate court erred in holding that a county lacked standing because the county demonstrated that it had suffered an injury in fact to a legally protected interest.

Search Cases for Free

Eddie's Leaf Spring Shop & Towing LLC v. Colo. PUC, Case No. 08SA359, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) did not err in assessing a fine against a towing company for refusing to cooperate in an investigation because 49 U.S.C.S. ? 14501(c) did not preempt PUC regulations. Further, regulation authorizing records requests was not unlawful because it did not violate U.S. Const. amend. IV or Colo. Const. art. II, ? 7.

Search Cases for Free

Hayes v. Lidley (In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2009-2010), Consolidated Cases: Case No. 09SA165, Case No. 09SA166, Case No. 09SA167, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Initiatives concerning an employee's right to a secret ballot in employee representation elections did not contain more than a single subject in violation of Colo. Const. art. V, ? 1(5.5). Initiatives did not present a second issue "coiled up in the folds" of another, nor did they bundle two unconnected objectives under a single yes-or-no vote.

Search Cases for Free

Krutsinger v. People, Case No. 08SC378, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In defendant's trial for sexual assault of a child and incest-related crimes, the exclusion of testimony from the victim's therapist was harmless error under Colo. R. Crim. P. 52(a). As defendant was not deprived of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the victim's credibility, the error did not rise to the level of federal constitutional error.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Brown, Case No. 09SA100, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendant was in lawful custody because the police had probable cause to arrest him for obstructing a peace officer and resisting arrest, he was taken to a hospital where the examining nurse discovered a baggy of cocaine in his fecal material; the district court erred by granting his motion to suppress the evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

Search Cases for Free

People v. Sandoval, Case No. 09SA117, SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court properly suppressed defendant's statements because defendant was in custody while interrogated, and he did not receive Miranda warnings before that interrogation. Police detective's statements to defendant at hospital and subsequent station-house questioning mandated determination that defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal