Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Vikman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1269

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 30, 1995No. 93SC73Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Mullarkey

specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.

We granted certiorari to review four issues in this case:

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that the jury should have been instructed that the petitioners must demonstrate “clear proof’ that the respondent' authorized or ratified its members’ acts of outrageous conduct;

2. Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the jury’s determination and ordering on remand that the district court give additional instructions based upon Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Clayton v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

24 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