After looking at all the facts, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said there were still questions as to when exactly the contract was formed, which was for a jury to determine.
The EEOC did not meet the necessary burden of showing why the information it was looking for was important; the Court had not abused its discretion when it denied help enforcing the subpoena.
What the damages were and why the Cohans suffered them were questions of fact for a jury to determine.
The Court determined that if a claimant is found to be “mentally unable to perform the work,” it is not necessary to probe more deeply into the reasons behind the mental issues
The Court of Appeals says that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the use of the defense’s expert witnesses by the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals agreed that there were errors during the trial, most resulting from prosecutorial overreach.
The district court ultimately granted Trujillo’s motion to dismiss on N.M.’s negligence claim.
The Court of Appeals found that the Blakelys did not bring forth evidence to support their claim, and affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to USAA.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remands this case for further proceedings.
The Court of Appeals examined each defendant in light of those two questions, and found that yes, the court did have personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
The Supreme Court also examined whether the Colorado legislature, in writing that statute, negated the common law principles of implied authority and apparent authority.
Scott did not back up her claims with any evidence to contradict the lower court’s determination. The court found no plain error in the record and affirm the compensation court’s determination.
