Legal Opinion
Kruse v. McKenna
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided March 3, 2008No. 06SC555PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice
In this case we address whether the plaintiff, Douglas M. McKenna, has standing to assert in Colorado state court an assigned claim for violation of the facsimile transmission provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2003). This issue was raised for the first time on appeal to our court. Applying Colorado state law, we find that a claim for liquidated damages under the TCPA is a claim for a penalty which cannot be assigned. Because McKenna only asserts TCPA claims that were purportedly assigned to him, we find he lacks standing to bring his claims.
*1199I. Facts…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- City of Greenwood Village v. for the Proposed City of CentennialSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- Ainscough v. OwensSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- State Board for Community Colleges & Occupational Education v. OlsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. BumannSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. LayIllinois Supreme Court · 2013
- e Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of CasperSupreme Court of Colorado · 2018
- Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2018
- ACE American Insurance Company v. Dish NetworkCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018
- Sharp v. Ally Fin., Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.