 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carl's Italian Rest. v. Truck Ins. Exch., Court of Appeals No. 06CA2183,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under a liability insurance policy, the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify an employer in a suit for damages brought by an employee who was injured by a car driven by a co-worker. The policy contained an exclusion for an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle operated by any insured, which included the co-worker.
|
|||||
| Copper Mt., Inc. v. Indus. Sys., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0560,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a ski resort sued a general contractor and a subcontractor to recover $ 1 million in damages to a ski lodge caused by fire, the contractors were entitled to summary judgment under Colo. R. Civ. P. 56. Under the waiver of subrogation clause, the contractors were not responsible for losses due to work or non-work on the lodge.
|
|||||
| Leewaye v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2264,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying request for additional workers' compensation benefits was set aside and remanded because the Colorado Industrial Claim Appeals Office erred in affirming the determination that the claimant's objection was untimely, when the corrected final admission of liability superseded the employer's prior final admission of liability.
|
|||||
| Olson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 06CA2164,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's summary judgment motion was properly granted as insured's claims were barred by statutes of limitations, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-107.5(1)(a), (3), -102(1)(a), -108(1), because, although he was on notice or knew when claims accrued, he did not file his uninsured motorist claim within three years or his bad faith claims within two years.
|
|||||
| Overstreet v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, Court of Appeals No. 06CA1655,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err by denying taxpayer's motion to waive the surety bond requirement of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-21-105 (2007) because the evidence showed that taxpayer had assets of, inter alia, two real estate properties and a stock sale/promissory note receivable valued at $ 2,625,000 that was payable at $ 525,000 per year plus interest.
|
|||||
| People v. Campbell, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0582,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because underlying factual basis for charges involved act of domestic violence and inmate was properly advised about his plea such that placement of domestic violence designation on complaint would not alter his understanding of agreement, technical violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-801(3) could be corrected by amending complaint on remand.
|
|||||
| People v. Heimann, Court of Appeals No. 06CA0662,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of probation was proper, even though it was outside of the 5-day period set forth in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-11-206(5), because the time was not jurisdictional in nature; time was not of the essence, there was no negative language denying the exercise of authority beyond that time, and there was no injury to public or private rights.
|
|||||
| People v. Whitman, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1428,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the child victim's teenage sister to sit near her while she testified because there was nothing about the sister's quiet presence that would unduly district the jury.
|
|||||
| Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Auth. v. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C., Case No. 06SC591,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an agreement obligated an urban renewal authority to acquire property by eminent domain, a company's specific performance claim was dismissed because, under the Contract Clause, the district court lacked the authority to order the specific performance of a contractual obligation to exercise the core governmental power of eminent domain.
|
|||||
| Young v. C.A.H. (In re J.C.T.), Case No. 06SC780,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probate court did not err in appointing a guardian ad litem as a "guardian designee" of a minor child where there was no one else available because this was not per se improper under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-102(4); a guardian ad litem was not excluded from serving in this capacity under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-14-310(4).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
