 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Marriage of Dezalia, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2455,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly applied the best interests standard set forth in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-129(1)(a)(II) and considered the factors mandated under that provision, rather than applying the endangerment standard set forth in § 14-10-129(1)(b)(I), to a mother's motion to move to Florida with her children.
|
|||||
| Parsons v. Allstate Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2051,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit brought by mother and daughter arising out of car accident, trial court erred in not entering default judgment against uninsured driver, but the trial court did not err in proceeding to a trial on damages against insurer because trial court properly followed prior case law. Trial court, however, did err in analysis of costs.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. S.R.M., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0665,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the parental rights of a child in an action involving the Citizen Potawatomi Nation was inappropriate because it was not given notice of the motion for termination as required under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901 et seq., and 25 U.S.C.S. § 1912(a).
|
|||||
| People v. Collier, Court of Appeals No. 05CA0897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct illegal sentence because all of his claims but one were Rule 35(c) claims as they challenged constitutionality of defendant's sentence, and claims were time barred pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-402 (2006) as motion was not filed within three years of sentencing.
|
|||||
| People v. Kelling, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's motion to substitute counsel was denied, remand was necessary because, under the Sixth Amendment, the trial court erred in failing to inquire since the duty of inquiry was triggered by defendant's complaints about counsel's lack of communication and nearly complete failure to investigate potential defenses.
|
|||||
| People v. Knight, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1526,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied severance of first degree murder and aggravated motor vehicle theft charges, Colo. R. Crim. P. 8, because evidence that defendant drove a stolen vehicle to and from the scene of the homicide was relevant to both offenses, and the court instructed the jury not to let its decision on one count influence its decision on any other.
|
|||||
| People v. Renander, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1546,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a child, the district court violated the separation of powers doctrine by ordering the prosecutor to reassemble 31 of the counts by victim rather than by image because, inter alia, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-403, each offending image constituted a separate and distinct sexual exploitation.
|
|||||
| People v. Santana-Medrano, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2152,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lack of a mens rea in "physical force or physical violence" special interrogatory was not error because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-402(4) did not require proof of mens rea to convict defendant of class three felony offense but demonstrated intent that offenders who used physical force or violence during sexual assault should be punished more severely.
|
|||||
| People v. Vasquez, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0729,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant admitted that he killed his wife, his right to confront witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment was not violated when his unavailable wife's statements were admitted under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing because he forfeited his right to confrontation by intentionally killing her.
|
|||||
| People v. Whittiker, Court of Appeals No. 01CA2340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of offenses related to defendant's discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle, since undue appellate delay was not prejudicial, out-of-court identifications were reliable, any improper testimony and argument did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, and the jury verdicts were not unsupported or inconsistent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
