 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Nickerson, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1659,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where Colorado law permitted a seller to subdivide her property and record a conveyance of an access easement to each of the smaller parcels, adjoining landowners were entitled to summary judgment under Colo. R. Civ. P. 56 in action to establish an access easement across a parcel. The easement was not extinguished by abandonment or merger.
|
|||||
| Bd. of County Comm'rs of San Miguel v. Roberts, Court of Appeals No. 05CA1370,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In landowners' dispute with county with respect to granting access to county's surveyor to survey landowners' property, trial court properly applied plain meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-515 because statute simply stated that licensed surveyor could lawfully enter land to perform survey, and this action did not constitute a taking.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0852,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in denying an employee's motion to amend his petition pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to add the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor, as a party in an action alleging unfair labor practices where the employee did not file his motion to amend until after the trial court had entered judgment.
|
|||||
| Holnam, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo. & Manuel Vigil, Court of Appeals No. 05CA2011,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The award of temporary total disability benefits to a claimant was inappropriate because claim preclusion applied to bar relitigation of the compensability of the claimant's cervical condition since it was the same injury that arose from the same transaction or series of connected transactions.
|
|||||
| Jayhawk Cafe v. Colorado Springs Liquor and Beer Licensing Bd., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City liquor licensing board followed proper procedure as required by El Paso County, Colo., Ct. R. 4.10 and Colorado Liquor Code, and, inter alia, business was not denied procedural due process with respect to its request for special hearing officer; inter alia, board was the licensing authority and it was entitled to receive initial investigation.
|
|||||
| People v. Vasquez, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0730,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statements were not obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel because defendant's counsel's motion at an arraignment in a difference case asserting defendant's right to counsel was not made to investigatory law enforcement authorities, but to the trial court, and was not made personally by defendant.
|
|||||
| Rocha v. Fin. Indem. Corp., Court of Appeals No. 05CA2156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in refusing to confirm the initial arbitration award because the insurer did not waive its right to assert that the original award exceeded policy limits, as the insurer was not required to raise the issue as an affirmative defense, when the arbitration clause empowered the arbitrator to decide the issue of policy limits.
|
|||||
| Sigala v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1597,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order declining to direct retroactive payment of TTD benefits for the period of time benefits were suspended under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-42-105(2)(c) for failing to attend a medical appointment was affirmed because "suspend" as used in the statute contemplated a forfeiture of TTD benefits for the period of suspension.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Lynx United Group, LLC, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0809,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION SIX, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notice of shareholders' lis pendens was not sufficient to give lien holder constructive notice of shareholders' claimed interest in company's property under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-110(1); inter alia, the deed of trust was given to the lien holder by company's secretary, not by the shareholders, the only two persons named in notice of lis pendens.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
