Legal Opinion
McCroskey v. Gustafson
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided May 27, 1980No. 79CA0360PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BERMAN, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the district court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Carl Gustafson and Quinn. & Co., Inc., (defendants) were bond consultants for the City and County of Denver (City) and in that fiduciary capacity assisted the City in numerous bond issues from 1971 through 1974. In November of 1975, Gustafson wrote to the Mayor proposing that the City take advantage of the strong municipal bond market. Essentially, Gustafson proposed that, because of the strength of the municipal bond market, the City issue tax-exempt bonds at a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wimberly v. EttenbergSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
- Harman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Terry v. BenderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Baker v. Denver Tramway Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1922
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McCroskey v. GustafsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
- in Multi-District Litigation v. A.H. Robins Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1984
- In Re AH Robins Co., Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1984
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1Colorado Court of Appeals · 1984
- McCroskey v. GustafsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981