 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bovard v. People, Case No. 04SC4,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where district court acted in its capacity as a trial court by conducting a trial de novo, final judgment was subject to direct appeal; thus, the court of appeals erred in holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's appeal.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. McMahon, Case No. 03SC685,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, October 18, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action brought by a successor trustee against a former trustee to recover misappropriated trust funds, a probate court's award of compensatory and exemplary damages against the former trustee was proper; the action was at law, not in equity.
|
|||||
| Clark v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1593,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Interlocutory appeal of denial of class certification was dismissed in action against insurer, where evidence of number of class members was not shown, action would survive individually, and DOI directed insurer to pay outstanding claims at issue.
|
|||||
| Jarrett v. Sheridan (In re Estate of Sheridan), Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0906,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the claim against the estate was affirmed, as Colorado's probate statutes did not exempt the claimant from the deadline contained in the published notice to creditors merely because she was known to the estate.
|
|||||
| Management Specialists, Inc. v. Northfield Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer had no duty to defend a corporation in two suits brought by clients, as errors and omissions policy's exclusion provisions were not ambiguous. Estoppel did not arise from the insurer's attempt to defend corporation for about six months.
|
|||||
| People v. Moon, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1107,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's discretionary aggravated range sentence was improper, where defendant did not admit that his offense was an aggravating circumstance, much less an extraordinary one. Hence, his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
|
|||||
| People v. Turley, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0845,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was affirmed because defendant's constitutional right to procedural due process was not denied by the trial court's reliance on hearsay testimony.
|
|||||
| Sears Distrib. Ctr. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0277,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation award was affirmed, because only temporary disability benefits paid on account of mental impairment were subject to the offset against temporary disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Thorpe v. State, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0243,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayers challenged refund of State's excess revenue only to full-year residents. Refund statutes were enacted to comply with state constitution; statutes did not violate Privileges and Immunities Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or Commerce Clause.
|
|||||
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. |
