 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bainbridge, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'Rs, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1435,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In building permit fee dispute, judgment for board of county commissioners was upheld because it was permissible for part of growth costs to be allocated to building department as indirect costs as method was reasonable and appropriate.
|
|||||
| Cary v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 00CA0681,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of insurance administrators was proper because: (1) insurance contract was between city and insured, and duty of good faith extended only to city; and (2) separate negligence claim was dismissed as matter of law.
|
|||||
| Edge v. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1469,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order cancelling driver's license for failure to give required or correct information in her application to have her license reinstated was improper because she was not required to disclose Washington's suspension of her driving privilege.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Dorworth, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1552,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in restricting the father's parenting time without a finding that, absent such restriction, the child would have been physically endangered or her emotional development would have been significantly impaired.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Cruzan, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1770,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's post accident conduct was relevant to show he had been operating his vehicle recklessly, it was material to the issue of punitive damages.
|
|||||
| People v. Diguglielmo, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0402,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly denied, without hearing, defendant's: (1) request to withdraw his guilty plea based on allegations; and (2) postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because he was advised of deferred judgment and sentence.
|
|||||
| People v. Gee, Court of Appeals No. 00CA0454,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of his vehicle. The officer's decision to have the vehicle towed was reasonable.
|
|||||
| People v. Jones, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to show that he misunderstood the sentencing ramifications of his plea agreement, he failed also to present evidence of a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea.
|
|||||
| People v. Luther, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1644,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, August 30, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While consecutive sentences were authorized for defendant who was convicted of attempted escape, requiring service of two periods of mandatory parole violated the statutory scheme.
|
|||||
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. |
