Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Court didn't have a duty...

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    The plaintiff argued to the Court of Appeals that it did not understand the order dropping parties to operate as a dismissal until the court ruled a year later
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      The plaintiff argued to the Court of Appeals that it did not understand the order

      dropping parties to operate as a dismissal until the court ruled a year later on the

      defendants' summary judgment motions. The district court did not have a duty to explain

      the legal effect of dropping parties under C.R.C.P. 21. It is the responsibility of parties'

      counsel to recognize the import of a court's decision and to argue the relevant legal

      issues to the court. King v. W. R. Hall Transportation and Storage Co., 641 P.2d 916 (Colo. 01/18/1982)

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      www.freedivorceforms.net
      www.irs-armory.com

      And, for optimum health:
      www.mannapages.com/barrysmith
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.