97 P.3d
Volume 97 — Pacific Reporter, Third Series
70 opinions
- 97 P.3d 11Del Rosario v. Del Rosario (2004)
- 97 P.3d 17COBRA ROOFING SERVICE, INC. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2004)
- 97 P.3d 26Gray v. Pierce County Housing Authority (2004)
- 97 P.3d 34State v. White (2004)
- 97 P.3d 39Hudon v. West Valley School Dist. No. 208 (2004)
- 97 P.3d 47State v. Fredrick (2004)
- 97 P.3d 51Boring v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 73Ritter v. State (2004)
- 97 P.3d 84Robbins v. State (2004)
- 97 P.3d 86Frank v. State (2004)
- 97 P.3d 93State v. Crocker (2004)
- 97 P.3d 119Boulder Country Club v. Boulder County Board of Commissioners (2003)
- 97 P.3d 123People v. Gilmore (2003)
- 97 P.3d 135Whitham Farms, LLC v. City of Longmont (2003)
- 97 P.3d 140Double Oak Construction L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Development International, L.L.C. (2003)
- 97 P.3d 152Martinez v. Colorado Department of Human Services (2003)
- 97 P.3d 161American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. v. King (2003)
- 97 P.3d 171People v. Miller (2003)
- 97 P.3d 174Carder, Inc. v. Cash (2004)
- 97 P.3d 188Estate of Walter v. Walter (2003)
- 97 P.3d 193Koinis v. Colorado Department of Public Safety (2003)
- 97 P.3d 197Bernal v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2003)
- 97 P.3d 204Campbell v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office (2003)
- 97 P.3d 215Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Public Highway Authority (2004)
- 97 P.3d 219In Re the Marriage of Bertsch (2004)
- 97 P.3d 223People v. Lopez (2004)
- 97 P.3d 227People v. Owens (2004)
- 97 P.3d 240People v. Witek (2004)
- 97 P.3d 246People v. Larson (2004)
- 97 P.3d 252Silverview at Overlook, LLC v. Overlook at Mt. Crested Butte Ltd. Liability Co. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 258Sholar Group Architects, P.C. v. Sooper Credit Union (2004)
- 97 P.3d 262People v. Wallace (2004)
- 97 P.3d 271People v. Baenziger (2004)
- 97 P.3d 277People v. Lopez (2004)
- 97 P.3d 283Native American Rights Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder (2004)
- 97 P.3d 290People v. Harman (2004)
- 97 P.3d 295People v. Daley (2004)
- 97 P.3d 300In the Interest of J.G. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 300People Ex Rel. Jg (2004)
- 97 P.3d 303Lin v. City of Golden (2004)
- 97 P.3d 308Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Southwestern Water Conservation District (2004)
- 97 P.3d 315People v. Rawson (2004)
- 97 P.3d 324Bockstiegel v. Board of County Com'rs of Lake County (2004)
- 97 P.3d 332Boulder County Apartment Ass'n v. City of Boulder (2004)
- 97 P.3d 338People v. Rushdoony (2004)
- 97 P.3d 346KOCA EX REL. ALPAR v. Keller (2004)
- 97 P.3d 354In re the Marriage of Ohr (2004)
- 97 P.3d 359Peterson v. Tadolini (2004)
- 97 P.3d 363People Ex Rel. Lac (2004)
- 97 P.3d 369In re the Marriage of Dauwe (2004)
- 97 P.3d 639Manchester v. Green Tree Financial Servicing Corp. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 651Fultz v. Smith (2004)
- 97 P.3d 697Evans v. Board of County Commissioners (2004)
- 97 P.3d 706In the Interest of J.C. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 745ROGERS POTATO SERVICE v. Countrywide Potato (2004)
- 97 P.3d 751Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Patrick Archer Const., Inc. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 760McNeil v. Powers (2004)
- 97 P.3d 767In Re Detention of TAH-L. (2004)
- 97 P.3d 775American States Ins. Co. v. Rancho San Marcos Properties, LLC (2004)
- 97 P.3d 822City of Bethel v. Peters (2004)
- 97 P.3d 830Marshall v. First National Bank Alaska (2004)
- 97 P.3d 921In re the 2000-2001 District Grand Jury in & for the First Judicial District (2004)
- 97 P.3d 932People v. Wadle (2004)
<bold>No. 03SC340</bold>, <bold><underline>The People of the State of Colorado v. Deborah Wadle</underline></bold><bold>:</bold><bold>Criminal Law — Jury Deliberations — Extraneous Communications.</bold> The People sought review of the court of appeals' judgment in <underline>People</underline><underline>v. Wadle</underline>, <cross_reference>77 P.3d 764</cross_reference> (Colo.App. 2003), reversing the defendant's conviction for child abuse resulting in death. The district court rejected the defendant's motion for new trial, which alleged improper consideration by the jury of information acquired through the Internet, after the evidence was closed and deliberations had already begun. That information briefly described the characteristics and uses of a prescription drug being taken by the defendant. Although the jury's misconduct and its exposure to extraneous information were clearly established, the district court declined to order a new trial, finding there to be no reasonable possibility that the extraneous information affected the verdict. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals. Holding that a reviewing court must independently determine the existence of a reasonable possibility of influence, the supreme court found that the court of appeals applied a proper legal standard and correctly determined that there indeed was a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information would have affected the verdict of a typical jury.<page_number>Page 933</page_number>
- 97 P.3d 938Department of Transportation v. Stapleton (2004)
- 97 P.3d 951City of Black Hawk v. City of Central (2004)
- 97 P.3d 961Civil Service Commission v. Carney (2004)
- 97 P.3d 968People v. Woodford (2004)
- 97 P.3d 1150Holtzen v. Tulsa County Board of Adjustment (2004)
- 97 P.3d 1155Gordon v. State (2004)
- 97 P.3d 1290Page v. McKeachnie (2004)