Colorado Court of Appeals· 4/7/2005
In re R.A.
Citations
- 121 P.3d 295
- 2005 Colo. App. LEXIS 525
- 2005 WL 774465
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that “[c]ourts recognize that, in light of the rebuttable nature of the presumption [that fit parents act in their children’s best interests], the ‘special weight’ requirement does not insulate parental wishes from judicial review”
- applying the presumption in a visitation dispute between fit adoptive parents and the child's paternal grandparents
- applying the presumption in a visitation dispute between fit adoptive parents and the child’s paternal grandparents
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Casebolt, Dailey, Piccone
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People ex rel. C.M.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2005-06-02· cited 538×
- Hamit v. HamitNebraska Supreme Court· 2006-06-02· cited 138×
- In Re the Marriage of McSoudColorado Court of Appeals· 2006-02-09· cited 55×
- In Re Adoption of CaSupreme Court of Colorado· 2006-06-26· cited 50×
- In the Interest of C.T.G.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2007-08-09· cited 25×
- Noland v. YostNebraska Supreme Court· 2023-12-15· cited 16×
- Koshko v. HainingCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2006-05-02· cited 3×
- In re the Marriage of GrahamColorado Court of Appeals· 2005-04-07· cited 2×
- People Ex Rel. CmColorado Court of Appeals· 2005-06-02· cited 1×
- In Re RA, Jr.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2005-10-03· cited 1×
- Neal Lovlace and Norma Jean Lovlace v. Timothy Kevin Copley and Beth CopleyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee· 2012-02-03
- In Re CTGColorado Court of Appeals· 2007-08-09
Cites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 6,943×
- Rideout v. RiendeauSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2000-11-13· cited 170×
- Roth v. WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-01-29· cited 160×
- T.B. v. L.R.M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-12-28· cited 157×
- Blixt v. BlixtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2002-09-09· cited 140×
- Clark v. WadeSupreme Court of Georgia· 2001-02-16· cited 131×
- Moriarty v. BradtSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2003-07-14· cited 127×
- Linder v. LinderSupreme Court of Arkansas· 2002-04-25· cited 117×
- Herbst v. SayreSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1998-10-13· cited 78×
- Latimer v. FarmerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-08-16· cited 65×
- In Re Marriage of HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court· 2004-08-23· cited 63×
- In the Interest of E.L.M.C.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2004-07-01· cited 61×
- Stacy v. RossMississippi Supreme Court· 2001-10-31· cited 50×
- In Re the Adoption of T.K.J.Colorado Court of Appeals· 1996-06-13· cited 48×
- In Re Marriage of HowardSupreme Court of Iowa· 2003-05-07· cited 35×
- Jackson v. TangreenCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2000-12-26· cited 35×
- Oliver v. FeldnerOhio Court of Appeals· 2002-06-21· cited 34×
- Glidden v. ConleySupreme Court of Vermont· 2003-02-14· cited 33×
- Fenn v. SherriffCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2003-06-25· cited 30×
- In Re the Custody of C.M.Colorado Court of Appeals· 2003-01-02· cited 23×
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.