 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allely v. City of Evans, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1608,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying property owners' petition to disconnect land from a city because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-601 (2005) was not applicable to the case. The statute was applicable only to statutory cities and the trial court thus lacked jurisdiction to order disconnection.
|
|||||
| DOT of Colo. v. Marilyn Hickey Ministries, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0928,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In transportation department's eminent domain proceeding, trial court erred in precluding church from presenting evidence of damage to remainder caused by loss of visibility of church's property from a highway because damages for loss of property's view were compensable pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-1-105(2) and Colo. Const. art. II, § 15.
|
|||||
| Daly v. Aspen Ctr. for Women's Health, Inc., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0904,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a patient's medical malpractice suit against a health center and a doctor, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the health center as the health center could not have been held accountable for the doctor's alleged negligence on theories of respondeat superior, inherent agency power, or nonservant agent.
|
|||||
| Droste v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0637,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In property owners' challenge to a county's temporary moratorium on land development applications, the trial court properly denied the owners' request for injunctive relief as the ability to enact such a temporary moratorium was necessarily implied in the Colorado Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-20-101 et seq.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Redmond, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1970,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a marital dissolution, trial court erred when it ordered special advocate, who was also an attorney, to refund her fees without determining whether her conduct in altering dates on medical releases had violated Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c); the trial court had not permitted the advocate to explain the circumstances surrounding the alterations.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Salby, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0806,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding that parties' separation agreement was unenforceable due to lack of disclosure, but more findings were required as to value of nonretirement financial assets; also, child support and maintenance orders were reversed for findings on whether father's consulting work was secondary employment not includable as income.
|
|||||
| Martelon v. Dep't of Health Care Policy & Fin., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0860,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in affirming the decision of the department of health care policy and financing to deny a patient Medicaid benefits based on a Social Security Administration (SSA) determination as the SSA determination was not legal authority, but merely persuasive evidence, and should have been presented to an administrative law judge.
|
|||||
| McClaflin v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of an employee's request for unemployment benefits was proper as she failed to demonstrate that she met the statutory eligibility requirement of actively seeking work under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-107(1)(g)(I).
|
|||||
| Moreland v. Alpert, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0400,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a creditors' proceeding, appellate court concluded that Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-8-112 and Colo. R. Civ. P. 103 could be harmonized because a creditor could reach stock certificate under either method, but creditor's writ of attachment was void in this instance because there was no levy and intervenors' writ of garnishment had priority.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. T.E.M.People, In the Interest of T.E.M., T.E.M., W.B.M., Jr., T.B.M., & C.E.M., Children, Upon the Petition of Denver Dep't of Human Servs., Petitioner-Appellee, & In re W.B.M., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0837,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of a father's parental rights was proper where the court rejected the father's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that he did not reasonably comply with the treatment plan required by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-604(1)(c)(I) (2005). He failed to comply with critical components.
|
|||||
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. |
