 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. Silvern, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order denying sanctions without a hearing was reversed because Colo. R. Civ. P. 37(e) expressly required a hearing; the trial court should have conducted a hearing before ruling on the motion for sanctions.
|
|||||
| Foster v. Redd, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1963,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for chiropractor was affirmed because sidewalk ordinance imposed only a penalty but did not create civil liability for violators. The chiropractor neither caused nor contributed to the curb damage; and the city owned the curb.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Fiffe, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA2078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION A, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court disagreed with a husband's contention that the trial court erred by granting a permanent protection order without making a finding of "imminent danger"; based on the plain language of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-14-102, a finding of imminent danger was a prerequisite only to the issuance of a temporary protection order.
|
|||||
| Keith v. Kinney, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0923,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in concluding that sand, gravel, and other aggregate minerals were part of surface estate and that mineral interest owner's conversion claim failed where sufficient evidence showed that there was no destruction of the layer above mancos shale and no commercial quantities of gold were found in surface owners' gravel pit.
|
|||||
| Kinney v. Keith, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1406,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in relying on extrinsic evidence of the original contracting parties' intent to determine whether sand and gravel were included in the mineral reservations, particularly in light of the allegations that sand and gravel did not underlay the entire surface of the parcels.
|
|||||
| Leprino Foods Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1379,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Industrial claim appeals office had not erred in finding claimant's Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-107 request for lump sum payment of PPD benefits did not constitute waiver of her right to contest MMI through division-sponsored independent medical examination (DIME) process because she had exercised right to challenge final admission of liability (FAL).
|
|||||
| Pat's Constr. Serv. v. Ins. Co. of the West, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA1085,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action, construction company sought reimbursement from surety; however, directed verdict for surety was proper because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-26-105 barred the action; complaint was filed more than six months after the project's completion, and there was no bond language that extended the statutory time limit.
|
|||||
| People ex rel. K.T., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1123,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights was affirmed because the mother's refusal to document her sobriety through random urinalysis testing and to participate in substance abuse treatment showed that the mother was not committed to meeting the child's needs and was unfit to parent.
|
|||||
| People v. Cevallos-Acosta, Court of Appeals No. 03CA0207,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution's failure to disclose murder victim's oldest son's criminal history before he testified violated Colo. R. Crim. P. 16 and was reversible error as to a menacing charge because he was the only witness who testified to elements of that charge, but his testimony was cumulative as to murder, thus only one menacing conviction was set aside.
|
|||||
| People v. Isom, Court of Appeals No.: 03CA2518,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for enticement of child, contributing to delinquency of minor, and sexual assault on a child, and habitual offender sentence were affirmed because trial court had discretionary authority to excuse juror for hardship under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-71-121 and defendant was not entitled to jury determination of habitual sex offender status.
|
|||||
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. |
