Supreme Court of Colorado· 11/27/2001

Medina v. State

Citations

35 P.3d 443
2001 Colo. LEXIS 970
2001 WL 1491459

How courts have described this case

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

noting that conditions implicating defective maintenance rather than design “develop subsequent to the initial design and construction of the [facility]”
explaining that a trial court is authorized to conduct a hearing and to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts
remanding for hearing because evidence already admitted did not resolve key factual dispute as to whether plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by lack of maintenance or were solely attributable to design
\[T]he duty to maintain can arise only after the road has been designed and constructed.\
“[I]f all relevant evidence is presented to the trial court, and the underlying facts are undisputed, the trial court may decide the jurisdictional issue as a matter of law . . . .”
“[W]e hold that, as a matter of law, the CGIA does not waive immunity for claims asserting a failure to warn, failure to close the highway, or failure to suggest alternate routes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Coats, Kourlis, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

41 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.