 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andersen v. Lindenbaum, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to sham affidavit rule, trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a surgeon based on 2-year statute of limitations of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102.5(1) (2005) in patient's informed consent action because trial court found that, in her affidavit in opposition to summary judgment, patient had changed her deposition testimony.
|
|||||
| Credit Serv. Co. v. Dauwe, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father failed to rebut the presumption that psychiatrist acted in good faith under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-309 when he reported child abuse allegations or to raise disputed issues of material fact where father filed to present affidavits attested under oath and sworn or certified copies of attachments as required by Colo. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
|
|||||
| Cruz-Cesario v. Don Carlos Mexican Foods, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an employee's constitutional challenge to a department of labor and employment rule under Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(b) was improper as the employee had no particular motivation to file a motion to join until the trial court determined that the workers' compensation director was indispensable.
|
|||||
| First Christian Assembly of God v. City & County of Denver, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1449,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a church's breach of contract suit, summary judgment in the city's favor for the church's untimely initiation of the dispute resolution process under Denver, Colo., Rev. Mun. Code 56-106(b) was error as the church was not required to initiate the process within 30 days, but could invoke the procedure by requesting informal discussions.
|
|||||
| Mariscos Las Islitas, Inc. v. Gonzales, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1158,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department of excises and licensing properly denied a restaurant's application for a hotel and restaurant liquor license as the restaurant was within 500 feet of a public school, which would have violated Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-47-313(1)(d), and the department's measuring methodology was proper.
|
|||||
| People v. Couillard, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1747,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In accessory trial, principal's guilty plea was improperly admitted because it was testimonial under Crawford and defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Victim's statement to officer was also improperly admitted because defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine victim and State made no showing of unavailability.
|
|||||
| People v. Flowers, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The search of defendant's vehicle was lawful pursuant to U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV, and Colo. Const. art. II, § 7 because there was probable cause to arrest him. He parked his vehicle next to the drug seller's vehicle and police heard the seller state that he had to go to defendant's vehicle to get the drugs sold to the confidential informant.
|
|||||
| People v. Martinez, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a vehicular-reckless driving case, the sentencing court did not violate defendant's constitutional rights under Apprendi and Blakely by relying on his misdemeanor convictions based on guilty pleas in support of an aggravated range sentence under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401 as the prior convictions involved the same type of conduct.
|
|||||
| People v. McCann, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if the trial court acted within its discretion in shortening the statutory period for restitution at the State's request, it erroneously concluded that the 60-day deadline imposed by its own order was jurisdictional as the State met the 90-day limit under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-603(1)(b), which was not jurisdictional.
|
|||||
| People v. Taylor, Court of Appeals No. 03CA0406,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, September 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for distributing imitation controlled substance under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-422 where acetaminophen was formed and packaged like crack cocaine, and officers saw defendant using evasive tactics to conceal it in his pants and engaging in "street level" narcotics sales.
|
|||||
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. |
