 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Rules Governing New Withdrawals of Ground Water v. Appellees: Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist., Case No. 08SA312,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In water dispute, water court did not abuse discretion in awarding costs to state engineer and proponents in proceedings that occurred under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-92-501(3)(a), because the proceedings were sufficiently trial-like to provide the water court with discretion, pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 54(d), to award costs to prevailing parties.
|
|||||
| Lobato v. State, Case No. 08SC185,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs were entitled to the opportunity to prove their allegations that Colorado's public school system violated the mandate set forth in Colo. Const. art. IX, § 2, that the legislature provide a "thorough and uniform" system of public education throughout the state.
|
|||||
| Schultz v. Sutherland, Case No. 08SC587,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, remedial revival statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-111(1), did not apply because the case could not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Moreover, the trial court properly ruled that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations because amended complaints did not relate back pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 15.
|
|||||
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. |
