Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 18, 2012No. 10SC187Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChief Justice Bender

38 The majority holds that unlawful bid rigging does not occur when all of the bidders in an ongoing foreclosure auction agree that "instead of 'bidding the property up further and further, they cease bidding against each other and buy the property jointly." Maj. op. at 16. I disagree with this holding because I believe that this anti-competitive scheme was intended to stop further bidding and thus constitutes an illegal bid rigging conspiracy in violation of section 6-4-106(1), C.R.S. (2011). Thus, I respectfully dissent from Part ILB of the majority's opinion. However, because I agree with…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. National Society of Professional Engineers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. United States v. Container Corporation of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc. And Gerald O. PhilpotCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
  4. Love v. Basque CartelDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 1995
  5. United States v. GuthrieDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API