 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Grynberg v. Phillips, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1149,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against an expert was properly dismissed because the claim was a compulsory counterclaim in a Wyoming action and the Wyoming court's order of voluntary dismissal, with or without prejudice, barred relitigation of that claim pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 13(a), 41(a)(2) and Colo. R. Civ. P. 13(a), 41(a)(2).
|
|||||
| In re 2003-2004 Term of the State Grand Jury, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a grand jury investigated a university football program and indicted a recruiting aide, the trial court did not err by declining to authorize the release of the grand jury report, because, inter alia, the trial court properly found that the indictment and the grand jury report arose out of the same "case" under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-205.5.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of C.R.C., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2468,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a great-uncle took a child from Texas to Colorado without notifying the mother, he lacked standing to seek an allocation of parental responsibilities under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-123(1)(c) because he did not have physical care of the child for six months or more with the mother's consent since the mother sought the return of the child.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. T.L.B., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-508(1) allowed for a disposition of termination of parental rights; father received a hearing and an opportunity to litigate the issue as to whether no treatment plan could be devised for him because of his unfitness, and therefore, the proceedings were in substantial compliance with the statutory scheme.
|
|||||
| People v. Ortiz, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1154,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a second-degree kidnapping conviction, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-302, because a mother heard her son yelling for help, she saw her son in the passenger seat of a vehicle, defendant was in the driver's seat and was holding the boy by the arm, and defendant drove away from the area with the child still in the car.
|
|||||
| People v. Thompson, 06PDJ079,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| People v. Weare, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0333,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions of first degree kidnapping, reckless manslaughter, felony murder were merged into felony murder conviction. Guilty verdicts for kidnapping and conspiracy were not inconsistent because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-301(1)(b) imposed only a single intent as element of kidnapping.
|
|||||
| People v. Wright, 06PDJ039,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1161,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds were entitled to stack underinsured motorist (UIM) policies because one insured and the insured's mother, who had been killed as a passenger in a single-car accident, had separate UIM policies, which satisfied the requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-4-402 and 10-4-609(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
