 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Howell, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0905,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, September 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that defendant violated the "no security work" condition was sufficient to revoke his probation and the assessment of costs following the oral pronouncement of defendant's sentence did not violate principles of double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| People v. Rogers, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0105,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers' knowledge of defendant's turbulent relationship with victim, his ex-wife, and his lack of emotion in reaction to news of shooting, provided police with adequate grounds to reasonably believe he was criminally responsible in some manner.
|
|||||
| People v. Stanley, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1164,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, September 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were reversed, because his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid. The resisting arrest charge was dismissed, as the evidence was insufficient in that defendant was already in custody and under arrest.
|
|||||
| Provo v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1239,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 12, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The third ALJ could grant a dismissal because the second ALJ's denial of the attorneys' first motion to dismiss was interlocutory. Penalties against the attorneys could be assessed based upon the attorney's fraud or malice.
|
|||||
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. |
