Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Cassidy

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided June 29, 1989No. 87CA0684Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHume, Judge

I agree with the disposition of issues in Part I and Part II A of the majority’s opinion. However, I disagree with the majority’s determination that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the principal amount of the $42,500 promissory note executed by Cassidy.

Once a summary judgment movant makes a convincing showing that genuine issues of fact are lacking, C.R.C.P. 56(e) requires the opposing party to demonstrate by affidavit or otherwise, the existence of relevant and specific facts that present a genuine factual controversy. McLaughlin v. Allen, 689 P.2d 1169…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McLaughlin v. AllenColorado Court of Appeals · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API