 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People v. Mitchell, Case Number: 05PDJ023,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarment of the attorney was proper pursuant to Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) where she accepted funds from her clients pursuant to flat-fee agreements, failed to complete the work promised in these agreements, and treated the funds as her own by exchanging client checks for cash.
|
|||||
| Associated Bus. Prods. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2370,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of a $ 24,900 penalty for the employer's failure to pay $ 107 in bills incurred by the workers' compensation claimant was affirmed because the employer did not offer any evidence or explanation for its conduct, and the delays in payment had worked a hardship on the claimant's family.
|
|||||
| Barton v. Law Offices of John W. McKendree , Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1155,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of attorney fees was vacated. Because the litigant's legal malpractice claim was not dismissed based on Colo. R. Civ. P. 12(b), the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 13-17-201.
|
|||||
| In re the Marriage of Hillstrom, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0127,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Colorado had no jurisdiction to modify a Nebraska child support order and where the father lived in Washington, court did not err in granting his motion to dismiss mother's action to modify support under Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 14-11-101 et seq. (2005) as Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA),¿Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 14-5-101 et seq., controlled.
|
|||||
| People v. French, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's enhanced sentence of twelve years for his vehicular homicide conviction did not violate the Sixth Amendment or offend due process principles because a guilty plea constituted a conviction within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-1.3-401(9)(a).
|
|||||
| People v. Rieger, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA1900,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habitual criminal aspect of judgment was reversed because trial court misinterpreted Colo. Rev. Stat. ¿ 18-1.3-803(6), when it allowed the prosecution to file habitual criminal counts against defendant after he had pled guilty to escape. Statute did not allow a prosecutor to add known habitual criminal counts after a guilty plea had been accepted.
|
|||||
| People v. Scott, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2207,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's aggravated sentence was valid, and trial court did not err in denying his Colo. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion because at sentencing defense counsel admitted defendant had been on parole at the time of the offense, his parole had been revoked, and he had been resentenced. Defendant did not object or dispute it; this served as an admission.
|
|||||
| People v. Sharp, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0619,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's confrontation rights were not violated by introduction of a child's videotaped statement at trial because a private forensic interviewer questioned the child using casual, open-ended questions, and an objective person in the child's position would not believe her statements would lead to punishment of defendant.
|
|||||
| People v. Watkins, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 3, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixteen year sentence for reckless child abuse resulting in death was affirmed because defendant was convicted of having recklessly caused the child's death. She was therefore not similarly situated to persons convicted under ¿ 18-6.5-103(2)(a) of negligently causing death to an at-risk juvenile.
|
|||||
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. |
