Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spencer v. Sytsma

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 7, 2003No. 02SA342Published

1Dissent

. Justice BENDER,

dissenting:

Because no conflict exists between our statutory civil procedure rules of permissive joinder and venue, I respectfully dissent. The plain language of the permissive joinder and venue rules-consistent with their federal law counterparts-grant the trial court broad discretion to use both rules in tandem to choose between different locations to try multiple defendants in one action. Such a flexible interplay between these procedural rules comports with basic notions of efficiency, fairness, and common sense.

By characterizing venue as a "Jjurisdictional requirement,"…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Fletcher & Gerelds v. StowellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
  3. Shreve v. Copper Bell Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Sutterfield v. District Court in and for Arapahoe CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1968
  5. Kirby v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1911

11 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