Manka v. Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• \Questioning the constitutionality of a statute for the first time in an appellate brief will not successfully raise the issue for review. ...\
• stating that under C.R.C.P. 54(b), when a summary judgment disposes of less than the entire action, the judgment is not final unless the trial court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and directs the entry of a final judgment
• stating that under C.R.C.P. 54(b), when a summary judgment disposes of less than the entire action, the judgment is not final unless the trial court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay and directs the entry of a final judgment
• litigant who elects to proceed pro se must follow the same rules of procedure applicable to parties represented by counsel
• new constitutional questions raised for the first time in an appellate brief will not successfully raise the issue for review
• mere mention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 insufficient to raise constitutionality of statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).