People ex rel. Washburn v. Frank B. Hall & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \proof of actual harm or injury to the child\ is not required
• holding that state crime qualified as child abuse because it required “a knowing or reckless act, and the juvenile status of the victim [was] an element of the offense”
• holding that “proof of actual harm or injury to the child” is not required
• holding that Colorado’s child-endangerment statute is categorically a “crime of child abuse” under the INA, in part because Colorado Supreme Court cases interpret the risk of harm element as requiring at least “a reasonable probability of injury” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that Colorado’s child-endangerment statute is categorically a “crime of child abuse” under the INA, in part because “[permitting a child to be placed in a situation posing a threat involving less than a ‘reasonable probability” of injury” is not “punishable as child abuse” in Colorado
• holding that Colorado’s child-endangerment statute is categorically a “crime of child abuse” under the INA, in part because Colorado Supreme Court cases 11 interpret the risk of harm element as requiring at least “a reasonable probability of injury” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).