 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1891,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly dismissed a county's action seeking judicial review of a hazardous waste permit issued pursuant to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's exclusive statutory authority under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-301(1) because the county lacked both constitutional and prudential standing to challenge the permit.
|
|||||
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1255,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court properly dismissed a county's action seeking judicial review of a hazardous waste license issued pursuant to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's exclusive statutory authority under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-15-301(1) because the county lacked both constitutional and prudential standing to challenge the license.
|
|||||
| Gitlitz v. Bellock, Court of Appeals No. 06CA 1313,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court vacated and remanded order denying preliminary injunction based on a lack of irreparable harm because the basis of that finding was not clear from the record; however, the court held that the loss of a contractual right to manage and control a business could constitute irreparable harm for which monetary damages would be inadequate.
|
|||||
| Kreft v. Adolph Coors Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2315,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where residents alleged that defendants' alcohol advertisements encouraged underage children to use "family assets" illegally to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages, they lacked standing because, inter alia, they did not show they had a child consumer who suffered injury; the residents waived their right to raise the amendment issue on appeal.
|
|||||
| People v. Allen, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to reversal of his conviction of introducing contraband in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-203(1)(a) as defendant was not given his Miranda warnings before certain questions were posed during booking on unrelated charge and those questions did not fall within routine booking or public safety exceptions to Miranda rule.
|
|||||
| People v. Baker, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0514,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding of universal malice was not required to convict defendant of extreme indifference first degree assault under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-202. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the assault victim suffered serious bodily injury.
|
|||||
| People v. Garcia, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual assault conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the district court erred in excluding evidence of the victim's alleged rape fantasy, and evidence of defendant's prior sexual relationship with the victim was subject to the prior sexual contact with the actor exception in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-407(1)(a).
|
|||||
| People v. Woellhaf, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence for sexual assault on child by one in a position of trust was affirmed as there was no double jeopardy violation, under Colo. Const. art. II, § 18, as, on remand, defendant's aggregate sentence on merged count was one-half aggregate sentence for convictions on four original counts, and his due process rights were not violated.
|
|||||
| Reeves v. City of Fort Collins, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1623,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A neighbor's petition challenging the approval of a development project was improperly denied based on a lack of standing because Fort Collins, Colo., Mun. Code § 2-46(1)-(6), 2-47 and Fort Collins, Colo., Land Use Code § 2.1.2 both recognized the rights of parties in interest, which included the neighbor based on his participation and opposition.
|
|||||
| Brodeur v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Case No. 06SC499,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bad faith tort claim against an insurer and an adjuster was barred by the limitations period in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(1)(a) because the claim accrued when it was discovered that a workers' compensation claim was being handled in bad faith; the fact that workers' compensation proceedings were ongoing did not affect this analysis.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
