 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fossenier v. People, Case No. 06PDJ027,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing board found suspended attorney proved by clear and convincing evidence he was rehabilitated and was fit to practice law under Colo. R. Civ. P. 251.29(b) and was reinstated, but board deemed condition that attorney meet with board-certified psychiatrist once more was necessary to ensure successful transition back into practice of law.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Gutfreund, Case No. 05SC902,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce action that was affirmed on appeal, a husband had to pay interest on a property award, even though he deposited the amount in a court registry, because the judgment was not satisfied under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-106(1)(a) since the wife did not have access to the funds; moreover, interest was also payable on attorneys' fees awarded.
|
|||||
| Jessee v. Farmers Ins. Exch., Case No. 05SA370,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colo. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) did not authorize those portions of the district court's protective order that purported to restrict the use of documents originally obtained by the insured or her counsel outside of the discovery process in the instant action, and therefore those portions of the protective order were to be vacated.
|
|||||
| People v. Lopez, Case No. 06SA116,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by permitting additional jury findings concerning factual circumstances of crimes for sentencing after defendant pleaded guilty because Colorado law did not contemplate an increase in the statutory maximum sentence to which a defendant had subjected himself by pleading guilty based on subsequent jury findings.
|
|||||
| Raile v. People, Case No. 05SC756,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though trial court erred by admitting a witness's statements to a police officer concerning the events that took place inside the trailer after the inmate entered it because the statements were testimonial and therefore their admission violated defendant's Confrontation Clause rights under the Sixth Amendment, the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Cardwell v. People, 06PDJ028.,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cardwell v. People, Case No. 06PDJ028,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, November 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearing board found suspended attorney proved by clear and convincing evidence he was rehabilitated as provided in Colo. R. Civ. P. 251.29(b) and reinstated him; although People argued debt was substantial issue and board agreed he faced significant financial hurdles, it found, inter alia, no order of restitution was made in either discipline case.
|
|||||
| Cherokee Metro. Dist. v. Simpson, Case No. 06SA95,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Water court properly found that a metropolitan water district's wells could be used to supply water outside the ground water basin only for emergency and backup because the parties' stipulation reflected no language or intent showing that the anti-export feature would become nonoperational in the event of future district development.
|
|||||
| People v. Alengi, Case No. 04SC493, Case No. 04SC494,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, November 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed judgment affirming a husband's conviction and reversed judgment reversing wife's conviction from same proceedings because Arguello advisement given to the couple was sufficient and trial court had no duty to inquire into the couple's financial situation in absence of affirmative statement that they could not afford counsel.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
