 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Kobobel, Court of Appeals No. 01CA2450,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In public road dispute, county commissioners' summary judgment was reversed because landowners' evidence raised material questions of fact; question of abandonment or nonabandonment could not be determined on summary judgment basis.
|
|||||
| Buckley Powder Co. v. State, Court of Appeals No. 00CA2265,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The existence of the state's statutory opt-in refund program did not preclude certification of a taxpayer class for the purpose of refunding taxes unconstitutionally collected by the state.
|
|||||
| Camack v. Camack, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1816,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decree of dissolution incorporating a separation agreement that awarded joint tenancy property solely to the husband was self-executing and extinguished the wife's interest in the residence; thus, the property belonged to the husband's successors.
|
|||||
| Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ho, Court of Appeals No. 02CA0231,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION TWO, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an injured person brought a personal injury action against a garage owner who took a customer's car after business hours while intoxicated and caused the collision, the court properly found insurance coverage under the garage business policy.
|
|||||
| In re Marriage of Tagen, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0404,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION THREE, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No statute prevented the trial court from directing one spouse to pay public employee retirement pension benefits to the other after divorce when the parties had not reached an agreement, and child support and maintenance were properly awarded.
|
|||||
| Pedge v. RM Holdings, Inc., Court of Appeals No. 01CA2239,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by holding unidentified or unknown persons could not be designated as nonparties pursuant to a state pro rata apportionment statute in a personal injury lawsuit.
|
|||||
| People v. Laurson, Court of Appeals No. 01CA1848,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 30-year sentence for criminal solicitation to commit second degree murder was affirmed because the offense was subject to enhancements to the presumptive sentencing range both as an extraordinary risk crime and a crime of violence.
|
|||||
| People v. Taylor, Court of Appeals No. 01CA0716,
COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, December 19, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In escape case, defendant not entitled to relief; he was on notice he could be liable if he failed to remain within limits of intensive supervision parole confinement and knew he could be prosecuted for felony escape if he left over 24 hours.
|
|||||
| People v. Varallo, Case Number 02PDJ045 consolidated with 02PDJ057,
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE, December 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disbarment was required where the attorney knowingly converted client funds, abandoned and intentionally deceived them, made false statements to the court, and there were other instances of failure to communicate and participate in proceeding.
|
|||||
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. |
