Legal Opinion

Feigin v. Colorado National Bank, N.A.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 12, 1995No. 94SC20PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kirshbaum

In this case the trial court entered an order directing the petitioner, State of Colorado Securities Commissioner Philip A. Feig-in (the commissioner), to reimburse the respondent, Colorado National Bank, N.A. (the bank), for costs incurred by the bank in complying with an administrative subpoena duces tecum issued by the commissioner pursuant to the Colorado Securities Act (the Act). §§ 11-51-101 to -908, 4B C.R.S. (1994 Supp.). The commissioner has appealed that order.1 We conclude that under the circumstances the trial court abused its discretion. We therefore reverse the trial court’s…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Hurtado v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Charnes v. DiGiacomoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
  4. United States v. FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
  5. Goedecke v. State, Dept. of InstitutionsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1979

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of BalansonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  2. Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority v. JorgensenSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  3. Eggleston v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Tulips Investments, LLC v. State of Colorado ex rel.Suthers, Colorado Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Colorado · 2015
  5. Eggleston v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003

11 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