Skip to main content
· 4/15/1991

Dove v. Delgado

Citations

  • 808 P.2d 1270
  • 15 Brief Times Rptr. 501
  • 1991 Colo. LEXIS 219
  • 1991 WL 55374

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding “reliance on settlement discussion with [the] insurer to be an unreasonable justification for failing to file within the requisite period of time”
  • \The doctrine of estoppel is not favored ... and will be applied only when all of the elements constituting an estoppel are clearly shown.\
  • statutes of limitation bar claims “that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared”
  • “It is . . . clearly within the legislature’s domain to amend statutes of limitations to shorten or lengthen the time after which certain actions shall not be brought.”
  • “The doctrine of estoppel is not favored . . . and will be applied only when all of the elements constituting an estoppel are clearly shown.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Vollack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.