Supreme Court of Colorado· 4/28/2003

Lobato v. Taylor

Citations

70 P.3d 1152
2003 Colo. LEXIS 372
2003 WL 1962264

How courts have described this case

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

preclusive effect of final judgment is not “‘altered by the fact that the judgment may have been wrong’”
“[T]he res judicata consequences of a final, unappealed judgment on the merits are not altered by the fact that the judgment may have been wrong.” (quotation and emphasis omitted)
“Because the plaintiff landowners have prevailed on their claims, Taylor now must pay the costs associated with identifying and notifying all persons who have access rights to the Taylor Ranch.”
“For practical purposes, this requirement [to show that one’s lands were timely settled] can be established by tracing settlement of one’s property to the time of Gilpin’s ownership of the Taylor Ranch.”
“In light of our holding that Taylor failed to exercise reasonable diligence in personally naming and serving all reasonably ascertainable individuals with an identifiable interest in the Taylor Ranch, the cost of remedying this failure on remand must be borne by Taylor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kourlis, Mullarkey, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.