Legal Opinion

Corlett v. Cox

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 15, 1958No. 18109PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Knauss

In the trial court plaintiffs in error were defendants and defendant in error was plaintiff. We will refer to the parties as they there appeared, or by name.

Plaintiff filed a complaint under Rule 105, R.C.P., against defendants and adjudication of the rights of the parties with respect to certain real estate; and for a decree quieting plaintiff’s title to the land in question. It is conceded that at the time the action was instituted Carl A. Holcomb was deceased; that his sole heirs- at law were defendants Alice B. Corlett and Edna Holcomb McLaughlin. The last two named defendants put in…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Paxton v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Toothman v. CourtneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Burns v. BastienSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  4. Miller v. RidgleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Rist v. Toole CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1945

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. O'BRIEN v. Village Land Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  2. Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
  3. Notch Mountain Corp. v. ElliottSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  4. Michaelson v. MichaelsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  5. J.M. Huber Corp. v. Square Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1982

12 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