Legal Opinion
McCracken v. Conticommodity Services, Inc.
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided April 7, 1988No. 85CA1509PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUME, Judge.
Plaintiffs, Merwyn and Deanna McCracken, appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding defendant, Conticom-modity Services, Inc. (Conti), 60% negligent and plaintiffs 40% negligent. We affirm.
After several conversations with a friend about investing in commodities, Mr. McCracken asked him to set up a meeting with his broker, Conti. After this first meeting, Conti sent the McCrackens several documents, including a risk disclosure document in which it was made clear that investing in commodities futures contracts involved great risk. In late December 1980, plaintiffs…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
- Rupert v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. LouisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- SEC. Nat. Bank v. Peters, Writer & ChristensenColorado Court of Appeals · 1977
- United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1967
- Rupert v. Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bernhard v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- McCrea & Co. Auctioneers, Inc. v. Dwyer Auto BodyColorado Court of Appeals · 1990