 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Travelers Cas. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0361,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly granted summary judgment to an insurer in proceedings alleging a breach of its duty to defend on behalf of its insured, a home builder, because the underlying complaint against the builder stated a possible claim that arguably fell within the policy coverage.
|
|||||
| Gallion v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, November 2, 2006, Announced
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A driver did not validly retract her initial refusal to consent to testing under the express consent statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1301.1, because, inter alia, the recantation was not made to the arresting officer or another officer with probable cause to believe the driver was violating laws prohibiting DUI or related offenses.
|
|||||
| Grant Family Farms, Inc. v. Colo. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1455,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(a) contained no language prohibiting contractually shortening the three-year limitations period, the parties' two year contractual limitations period was not "in conflict" with § 13-80-101(1)(a), and plaintiff farm's claim against defendant insurer was properly dismissed as time barred.
|
|||||
| Matoush v. Lovingood, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0538,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court improperly required servient property owners to prove dominant property owner's intent to abandon an easement for alley purposes under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-41-101. Abandonment was not an element of termination by prescription because if the servient use was truly adverse, relief was possible in the absence of need, demand, and refusal.
|
|||||
| People v. Bass, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1207,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unreasonable search and seizure error under Fourth Amendment was harmless as guilty verdict was unattributable to error and seized clothing only corroborated victim's and tenant's description of defendant. Six-year aggravated sentence for use of stun gun was proper as 77-year-old victim was at-risk adult, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-406(2)(a)(II)(A).
|
|||||
| People v. Versteeg, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1227,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on a change in the law, defendant was entitled to relief on his postconviction relief claim that the trial court committed plain error when it gave an erroneous jury instruction on, and allowed the prosecutor to make erroneous statements about, self-induced intoxication under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-804(1).
|
|||||
| Scoular Co. v. Denney, Court of Appeals No.05CA0200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant, in a suit concerning the acceptance of an alleged offer, contended for the first time in his petition for rehearing that his offer had lapsed by the time the parties talked on a certain date and because the contention was not raised in appellant's briefs, the court did not address it in its denial of the petition for rehearing.
|
|||||
| Scoular Co. v. Denney, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in concluding that a grain company's act in contracting to sell millet to a third party constituted acceptance of a farmer's offer because the company did not pay the farmer as a result of the contract, and the company did nothing with the contract to earmark the farmer's millet as the source of the millet sold there.
|
|||||
| U.S. Fax Law Ctr., Inc. v. Myron Corp., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1426,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiff law center's Colorado Consumer Protection Act claims, arising from unsolicited faxes, was affirmed because under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(1)(b) (2006), the only assignees authorized to bring an action were those whose assignors were actual consumers who purchased the defendant's goods, services, or property.
|
|||||
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. |
