 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Acoustic Mktg. Research v. Technics, Case No. 07SC789,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Damages, which consisted of lost future royalties, were properly awarded to consulting firm that breached parties' contract for firm to assist with re-coating and re-labeling of refurbisher's medical probes where firm offered evidence to show that its expectation of royalties was reasonably certain due to stability and profitability of the market.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. People, Case No. 07SC279,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order dismissing an inmate's case seeking to have his presentence confinement credit (PSCC) applied to the mandatory parole portion of his sentence was vacated because under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-1.3-405 (2008), an offender owed PSCC who had completed his confinement was entitled to have that credit deducted from his mandatory parole.
|
|||||
| People v. Wright, Case No. 08SA71,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A suppression order was disapproved where former Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 4.2 (amended 2008) was not a blanket prohibition on a district attorney contacting a defendant being represented by a public defender without the knowledge or permission of the attorney, and the district court made no findings as to the subject of the challenged communications.
|
|||||
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. |
