 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barber v. Ritter, Case No. 07SC373,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transfer of monies from special cash funds to the state's general fund did not violate Amendment 1, Colo. Const. art. X, § 20, and did not trigger Amendment 1's voter approval requirement. Transfer of fees from the special cash funds to the general fund did not transform those fees into taxes, nor did the transfers result in a net revenue gain.
|
|||||
| Buffalo Park Dev. Co. v. Mt. Mut. Reservoir Co., Case No. 06SA373,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An augmentation plan was not approved for three subdivisions because an applicant failed to prove the existence of unappropriated water, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-305(9)(b), or that its proposed diversions would be non-injurious to the owners of vested small capacity wells, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-305(3)(a), (5), (8).
|
|||||
| Cantrell v. Cameron, Case No. 08SA162,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court's order compelling production of a driver's laptop, in a negligence suit alleging that a traffic accident was caused because the driver was using the laptop at the time of the accident, was vacated because the district court failed to assess the scope of the disclosure to protect the driver's privacy interests.
|
|||||
| People v. Marquez, Case No. 08SA186,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in suppressing a gun as an unconstitutional seizure, under U.S. Const. amend. IV, because the search of the vehicle, in which defendant was a passenger, was lawfully stopped for reasonable suspicion of a speed limit violation and its driver was lawfully arrested on an outstanding warrant.
|
|||||
| Reyes v. People, Case No. 07SC658,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss under the anti-shuttling provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-60-501, was properly dismissed because, by requesting that he be returned to federal custody before final disposition of the Colorado charges against him, defendant waived the protections of the anti-shuttling statute.
|
|||||
| Huspeni v. El Paso County Sheriff's Dep't (In re Freedom Colo. Info., Inc.), Case No. 08SA151,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court ordered the release of a sheriff's internal affairs investigation file under an incorrect legal standard of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act because the file was not a record of official action and public disclosure should have been subject to the discretion of the sheriff, under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-72-304, 24-72-305.
|
|||||
| People v. Jorlantin, Case No. 07SC875,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State did not have the burden of going forward at a suppression hearing to prove that defendant was the one seized or arrested for driving under the influence because when defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, this initial allegation sufficed to establish that he was the victim or aggrieved party.
|
|||||
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. |
