Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Nienke v. Naiman Group, Ltd.

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1992No. 91CA1217Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge ROTHENBERG

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in part and dissent in part.

The undisputed facts here show that, after the plaintiff had presented her case at trial, the trial court dismissed all but one of her claims. The court then suggested to counsel that they explore settlement. The parties left the courtroom, and apparently arrived at a settlement. However, since plaintiff was a protected person and a conservator had been appointed, the settlement required the approval of the probate court which had jurisdiction over a different aspect of the case.

Counsel contacted…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Converse v. ZinkeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1981
  2. People v. RoybalSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  3. People Ex Rel. Gallagher v. District Court Ex Rel. County of ArapahoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  4. Verzuh v. RouseColorado Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Tyler v. Adams County Department of Social Services Ex Rel. TylerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985

3 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