My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (171)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (171)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 8:23:22 AM
Creation date
10/19/2012 10:20:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) Court Appeals
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The movant must show affirmatively that the nonmovant would <br /> not -be entitled to recover under any and all circumstances . <br /> Discovery Land and Dev. Co v Colorado-Aspen Dev. Company, 40 <br /> Colo. App. 292 , 577 P.2d 1101 (1977) . Where reasonable people <br /> could disagree, summary judgment is inappropriate. Jafay v. <br /> Board of County Comm' rs of Boulder County, 848 P.2d 892 (Colo. <br /> 1993) . <br /> On appeal of a grant of summary judgment where there was no <br /> testimony taken in the case, such as here, the reviewing court <br /> must determine- the posture of the case as it went before the <br /> trial judge on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, interroga- <br /> tories and answers thereto, and depositions which are in the <br /> record. McKinley Construction Co. v. Dozier, 175 Colo. 397, 487 <br /> P. 2d 1335 (1971) . Where there is any controversy concerning a <br /> material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate. Id. <br /> The defendants in this case did not raise estoppel as an <br /> issue in either their motion to dismiss or in their motion for <br /> summary judgment (v. 1, pp. 46-57, 169 - 77) . They raised it <br /> briefly at oral argument at the motions hearing (v. 3 , p. 55) . <br /> The court, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, then <br /> granted summary judgment and dismissed the case from the bench at <br /> the hearing. The court found that the State was estopped from <br /> seeking more than $3 million in damages because $3 million was <br /> the amount claimed by the Division in MCR' s bankruptcy proceeding <br /> in 1993 (v. 3 , p. 63 ) . Subsequent to the hearing, the court <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.