Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Blood v. Qwest Services Corp.

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided May 28, 2009No. 08CA0134Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge RICHMAN

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority's comprehensive opinion to the extent it affirms the liability of Qwest, the finding of no liability on the part of Xeel, and the judgment for actual damages. I also agree that the trial court's order increasing exemplary damages should be vacated, but write separately to express specific concerns about the application of Colorado's exemplary damages statute. I write separately in dissent because I believe the jury's award of exemplary damages also must be vacated.

I. The Jury's Award of Exemplary Damages

I concur…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Exxon Shipping Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Philip Morris USA v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. People v. HarlanSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API