Neil v. Espinoza
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMullarkey, Justice
Although I concur in the portion of the majority opinion ordering a new trial on the issue of damages, I do not agree that a new trial is required on the issue of liability. The record makes clear that the jurors agreed that the defendant, David Neil, was liable to the plaintiffs for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and that the disagreement among the jurors was only as to the amount of actual damages. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment as to liability and remand for a new trial only as to damages.
I
The verdict form was divided into three parts: first, Neil's liability…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Daniels v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bell v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- Smith v. City of FontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Espinoza v. O'DELLSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
- Kelson v. City of SpringfieldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.