Massey v. People

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the defendant was sentenced on March 5, 1984, and filed a Rule 35(a) motion thirty-two days later on April 6, 1984
• “A ‘substantial nexus’ ... means that the defendant would have remained confined ... in the absence of any other charge.”
• “A ‘substantial nexus’ . . . means that the defendant would have remained confined . . . in the absence of any other charge.”
• “A ‘substantial nexus’ ... means that the defendant would have remained confined in the same judicial district on the charge for which credit is sought in the absence of any other charge.”
• “The defendant has not proven, and the record does not establish, that the Pitkin County charges prevented the defendant’s release from the Mesa County jail or contributed to his confinement outside of Pit-kin County.”
• “The defendant has not proven, and the record does not establish, that the Pitkin County charges prevented the defendant’s release from the Mesa County jail or contributed to his confinement outside of Pitkin County.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Massey v. People

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Massey v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1982-08-16· cited 30×
• Massey v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1983-01-10· cited 13×
• Massey v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1972-07-17· cited 8×