Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Loveland Essential Group, LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc.

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided February 2, 2012No. 11CA0722Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge CARPARELLI

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

39 I agree that the district court erred when it concluded the claims stated in the January 2009 complaint are precluded, and, on that basis, granted summary judgment. I also agree that "the alleged breaches based on the Reimbursement Agreement give rise to separate claims from those based on the lease." However, I reach this conclusion based solely on the application of the four-part test of claim preclusion and the determination that there is not an identity of claims for relief in the two lawsuits. In addition, I disagree with the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. Thomas A. Warren, John L. Warren, Jr., Des. E. Schick and David DefinaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  3. The Petromanagement Corporation, a Nevada Corporation v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture and J.L. Thomas Engineering, Inc., an Oklahoma CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
  4. Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Public Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. FajardoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906

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