Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10CA2289,11CA0369.,s. 10CA2289 |
| Citation | 300 P.3d 963 |
| Parties | CORE–MARK MIDCONTINENT, INC.; Core–Mark International, Inc.; United States Fire Insurance Company; and Commonwealth Insurance Company, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. SONITROL CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
21 cases
-
Tung Chan v. HEI Res., Inc.
...error, or if the prior decision would result in manifest injustice." Grand Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs , ¶ 24 (quoting Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp. , 2012 COA 120, ¶ 10, 300 P.3d 963 ); accord Saint John's Church in the Wilderness , ¶ 8. For the reasons discussed below, reconsider......
-
Redden v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp.
...will an exculpatory agreement be permitted to shield against a claim of willful and wanton negligence."); Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp. , 2012 COA 120, ¶ 18, 300 P.3d 963 ("[M]ost courts will not enforce exculpatory or limiting provisions that ‘purport to relieve parties fr......
-
Just in Case Bus. Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray
...to “any conduct other than breach of contract that constitutes a civil wrong and causes injury or damages.” Core–Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶ 47, 300 P.3d 963. It covers civil wrongs “even when one of the tortfeasors commits an intentional tort.” Toothman v. Fr......
-
Gonzales v. Windlan
...was so much more reliable or persuasive than that of the other experts that it changed the result at trial. See Core–Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶ 29, 300 P.3d 963 (The decision to admit or exclude evidence is harmless unless it " ‘substantially influenced the o......
Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
-
Rule 702 TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
...were foreseeable even if the expert did not qualify how much was not foreseeable. Core-Mark Midcontinent v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, 300 P.3d 963. Three-part test under equivalent federal rule applied in People v. Campbell, 847 P.2d 228 (Colo. App. 1992). Where challenged testimony add......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.2 FOUNDATION FOR ADMISSIBILITY
...expert testimony would permit the jury to infer the proposition for which it is offered. Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 300 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2012) (expert testimony is sufficient if it permits the jury to infer the proposition for which it is offered). ➢ Test for Admiss......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.2 • FOUNDATION FOR ADMISSIBILITY
...expert testimony would permit the jury to infer the proposition for which it is offered. Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 300 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2012) (expert testimony is sufficient if it permits the jury to infer the proposition for which it is offered). ➢ Test for Admiss......
-
Unique Construction Defect Damages Mitigation Issues
...and "any mitigating circumstances" as affirmative defenses). [25] But see Core-Mark MidContinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, 300 P.3d 963 (Colo.App. 2012), cert, denied (Pro Rata Act inapplicable to contract claims). [26] See supra notes 21 and 22 and accompanying text. [27] When......
Request a trial to view additional results