 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 01CA0317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied insurance company's motion for directed verdicts on the coverage issue, because it was not made with sufficient specificity, and on the bad faith issue, because based on the evidence, expert testimony was not required.
|
|||||
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Aurora, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1380,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where property designated by the county had been improved through grading and surfacing, and served as public roadways, it was not essentially unimproved, was not open space, and city was not precluded from annexing parcels owned by developer.
|
|||||
| City & County of Denver v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 02CA0322,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer was not entitled to recoup lump sum workers' compensation disability benefits already paid to a claimant based on a 26 percent impairment rating, where she reopened the claim, and it was found that her impairment rating was 9 percent.
|
|||||
| Colo. State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Johnson, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1613,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners' decision that the applicant's medical school education and postgraduate training were not equivalent to the training received from an approved school.
|
|||||
| Hytken v. Wake, Court of Appeals No. 01CA2107,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of legal malpractice action for failure to file a cost bond was affirmed, as the nonresident clients' multiple failures to file a cost bond constituted neglect under the statute.
|
|||||
| In re R.A., Court of Appeals No. 01CA1739,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The grandparent visitation statute was facially constitutional but the district courts judgment was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the statute was applied in an unconstitutional manner against the adoptive parents.
|
|||||
| People v. Auman, Court of Appeals No. 99CA0016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Totality of circumstances approach rather than a categorical rule was required to determine when felony murder liability terminated, and, the felony murder statute permitted inquiry beyond termination of a defendant's own immediate flight.
|
|||||
| People v. Campbell, Court of Appeals No. 00CA1111,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by making defendant choose between proceeding pro se or continuing to be represented by the third attorney, who had a conflict of interest with defendant. Defendant did not expressly or impliedly waive his right to counsel.
|
|||||
| People v. Moses, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of defendant's probation was upheld because the proper standard of proof was preponderance of the evidence in that defendant's probation was revoked on the basis of his violation of specific condition, not the commission of a new crime.
|
|||||
| People v. Rivera, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1773,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, September 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motions for post conviction relief was affirmed, as the aggravated sentence was based on unenumerated and unspecified extraordinary aggravating circumstances frequently considered in sentencing decisions.
|
|||||
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. |
