Maul v. Shaw
Colorado Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge RULAND.
Plaintiffs, Roger and Debra Maul, appeal that part of the trial court judgment assessing attorney fees against them and their attorney and in favor of defendants, Mike and David Shaw. We dismiss the appeal as to plaintiffs’ attorney, reverse the judgment against plaintiffs, and remand the cause with directions.
In 1989, Discovery Homes, Ltd., entered into a contract and agreed to construct a residence for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the house after it had been completed, and in July 1990, they commenced this action asserting claims against Discovery…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Frederick Lawrence White, Jr. Benjamin L. Staponski, Jr., and Gwen G. Caranchini v. General Motors Corporation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Harding Glass Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. WellerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Cruz v. BenineSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
- Bilawsky v. FaseehudinColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
- Bob Blake Builders, Inc. v. GramlingColorado Court of Appeals · 2001
- Tunget v. Board of County CommissionersColorado Court of Appeals · 1999
- Elrick v. MerrillColorado Court of Appeals · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.