Legal Opinion

Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided August 16, 2004No. 02SA182PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hobbs

We accepted this appeal in a medical malpractice case pursuant to section 13-4-102(l)(b), 5 C.R.S. (2003), which allows us to proceed directly when a trial court has declared a statute to be unconstitutional. 1 Re lying on the court of appeals opinion in Rodriguez v. HealthONE, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2000), the trial court in this case declared the periodic payment provision of section 13-64-205(l)(f), 5 C.R.S. (2001), which is applicable to people under the age of twenty-one and incapacitated adults, to be unconstitutional. 2 In HealthONE v. Rodriguez, 50 P.3d 879 (Colo.2002), we subsequently…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Best v. Taylor MacHine WorksIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Wimberly v. EttenbergSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
  5. City of Greenwood Village v. for the Proposed City of CentennialSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Arbino v. Johnson & JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Vigil v. FranklinSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  3. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Velez v. TumaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  5. USGen New England, Inc. v. Town of RockinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API