Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of Southern Colorado

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 17, 2007No. 06SC757Published

1DissentJustice Hobbs

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the district court, but on other grounds. The district court concluded that Holcomb had removed himself from the no-call list by publishing his residence phone number as his business number. In contrast, the county court, in its on-the-record colloquy and ruling, reasoned that Holcomb had made out a prima facie case that Jan-Pro had violated the no-call statute by calling his residential number, but did not carry his burden of proving a violation of the statute because, under the facts of this case, Jan-Pro's phone contact was within the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Western Distributing Co. v. DiodosioSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  2. People v. CrossSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
  3. Colorado Department of Labor & Employment v. EsserSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  4. Ballow v. PHICO Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1993
  5. Wolford v. Pinnacol AssuranceSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005

7 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