 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| People ex rel. M.G., Court of Appeals No.: 05CA0048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the mother waived her statutory right, she was not deprived of the right to counsel or entitled to substitute counsel at hearings on whether her children were dependent and neglected within the meaning of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-102, and any error in not allowing her to examine the GAL about the basis of her opinion was harmless error.
|
|||||
| People v. Perez, Court of Appeals No.: 04CA0537,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for criminal impersonation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-113(1) was affirmed because patient's information that was provided by physician to the police did not fall within the ambit of the physician-patient privilege, so trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and criminal impersonation was a continuing offense.
|
|||||
| Speedy Messenger & Delivery Serv. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, Court of Appeals No. 04CA2689,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Determination that messenger service was required to pay unemployment compensation taxes as an employer of certain couriers was affirmed as contract failed to disclose that the couriers, as independent contractors, were not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Documents did not contain required disclosures under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-70-115.
|
|||||
| Trigg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No.: 03CA0901,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for insured in uninsured motorist action was reversed as trial court erred, as a matter of law, in denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Insured knew the insurer was his uninsured motorist carrier and yet failed to file an action against insurer within the applicable limitations period under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-107.5.
|
|||||
| Valdez v. Pringle, Court of Appeals No. 04CA1210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury verdict for passenger in negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident was affirmed because under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(7) (2005), seat belt defense only applied to pain and suffering damages, not to other noneconomic losses. Award was not so extraordinary as to require conclusion that it considered pain and suffering losses.
|
|||||
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. |
