 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Behrmann Revocable Trust v. Szaloczi, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0775,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred when it dismissed the trust's individual claim of constructive fraud when there was an exception to the exclusivity of the dissenters' rights remedy where the corporate directors' actions were unlawful or fraudulent.
|
|||||
| Blesch v. Denver Publ. Co., Court of Appeals No. 01CA0728,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's basis for refusing to release the bulk of an autopsy report of a perpetrator of a school shooting was fundamentally altered with the passage of time and the release of a crime scene report, remand was necessary.
|
|||||
| Deforrest v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., Court of Appeals No. 01CA1795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The damages cap was improperly applied to all defendants where there were issues regarding whether the police officer's conduct was willful and wanton. The statute limited the recovery that a victim could receive from public entities.
|
|||||
| Donelson v. Fritz, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0777,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of the driver an action for damages for injuries was proper where reasonable minds could have differed on whether the expenses incurred were for injuries from the accident; therefore, the issue was properly submitted to the jury.
|
|||||
| Dufficy & Sons, Inc. v. BRW, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 01CA2201,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an engineering company and its agent owed an independent professional duty of care to a contractor in the performance of their duties, the judgment against the contractor was reversed and remanded.
|
|||||
| Hansen v. Hansen, Court of Appeals No. 01CA2359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Portion of husband's retirement disability benefits that was attributable to the years of service prior to disability constituted marital property, and benefits from disability remained separate property.
|
|||||
| Hoff & Leigh v. Byler, Court of Appeals No. 01CA2005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where broker allegedly failed to perform statutory duties in real estate transaction, broker was not agent of either party to transaction. Thus, broker did not owe fiduciary duties to either party and was not required to forfeit commission.
|
|||||
| In Stitches, Inc. v. Denver County Bd. of County Comm'rs, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1974,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where taxpayer's taxable personal property was listed on assessment rolls, but was undervalued, county board could not increase the taxable value retroactively, because undervaluation did not qualify as omitted property under statute.
|
|||||
| People v. Carrillo, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1811,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, November 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not state a cognizable ground for postconviction relief where he challenged the corrections department's action in deducting 20 percent of the deposits into his inmate bank account to apply toward the payment of restitution.
|
|||||
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. |
