Loveland Essential Group, LLC v. Grommon Farms, Inc.
Colorado Court of Appeals
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
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. Thomas A. Warren, John L. Warren, Jr., Des. E. Schick and David DefinaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- 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
- Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Public Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. FajardoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.