 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of County Comm'rs v. BDS Int'l, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1679,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a county's action to enjoin an oil company from drilling wells, a trial court properly struck Gunnison County, Colo., Regulation §§ 1-107L, Impact Mitigation Costs, and 1-107O, Financial Guarantees as invalid on their faces because they imposed financial requirements that contradicted the state regulation's financial caps.
|
|||||
| Camus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where insureds filed an action against the negligent driver following an automobile accident, claim preclusion did not bar a subsequent action against the insurance company for a bad faith violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The trial court erred by entering summary judgment under Colo. R. Civ. P. 56 on the basis of claim preclusion.
|
|||||
| Mahan v. Capitol Hill Internal Med. P.C., Court of Appeals No. 05CA0512,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A medical practice was not entitled to a new trial on a physician's breach of contract claim based on attorney misconduct where the trial court had instructed the jury not to consider an expert's answers to leading questions, had taken other corrective measures, and the practice's counsel had not objected to a statement in the closing argument.
|
|||||
| People v. Crespi, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1597,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug case, an incriminating letter written by defendant was properly admitted into evidence because it was relevant under Colo. R. Evid. 401 since it connected defendant to the crime scene and to a person who admitted manufacturing methamphetamine. Moreover, it was an admission of a party opponent under Colo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
|
|||||
| People v. Crespi, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1597,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance and possession of manufacturing chemicals or supplies under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-405 did not violate double jeopardy under U.S. Const. amend. V or Colo. Const. art. II, § 18 because the convictions were based on factually distinct conduct.
|
|||||
| People v. Prentiss, Court of Appeals No. 03CA1364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial for sexual assault on a child, the trial court erred by concluding the Colorado rape shield law, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-407, prevented defendant from cross-examining the victim about whether she was sexually active with anyone else. Reversal was not required, because defendant failed to lay an adequate foundation for such questions.
|
|||||
| People v. Sharp, Court of Appeals No. 04CA0619,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial on, inter alia, charges of sexual assault on his five-year-old daughter because a child's statements in a videotaped interview that was admitted into evidence were testimonial and violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when defendant was unable to cross examine the child.
|
|||||
| RMB Servs. v. Truhlar , Court of Appeals No. 05CA0854,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of plaintiffs' malpractice action for failure to comply with the certificate of review statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602 (2006), was reversed and remanded because the trial court had not requested any supplemental information; thus, plaintiffs could not be faulted for failing to describe the expert's qualifications.
|
|||||
| Candelaria v. People, Case No. 04SC657,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-102(1)(d) restricted a required killing act to one evidencing an attitude of universal malice, rather than altering the mental state required for commission of the crime, findings for first-degree murder of extreme indifference and specific intent with regard to a specific individual were not legally inconsistent.
|
|||||
| People v. Shell, Case No. 04SA93,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, December 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An individual had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law where she wrote to an attorney of two mothers in dependent and neglected child cases instructing him to take specific legal measures, prepared legal documents for the mothers to file pro se when the instructions were ignored, and filed a federal action on behalf of one child.
|
|||||
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. |
