We granted certiorari in this case to review the court of appeals’ judgment in Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Land Title Insurance Co., P.3d , No. 06CA0847, slip. op. (Colo. App. July 26, 2007).1 In this case, which arises from the foreclosure and sale of real property, we are concerned with the application of the principle of equitable subrogation: the right of a payor of an encumbrance on real pro

¶1 Revelation Industries (Revelation) sued its insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), for refusing to defend and indemnify Revelation in a lawsuit with Phillips Environmental Products, Inc. (Phillips). The Eighteenth Judicial District Court ruled that St. Paul had no duty to defend Revelation. Revelation appeals. We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

¶2 A restate

¶1 Appellant David Sherick (Sherick) appeals from the order of the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Scott D. Erler (Erler). We affirm.

¶2 We consider the following issue on appeal:

¶3 Did the District Court err in ruling that Leota Osburn and Donald Hill ratified the forged deed transferring property to Erler?

This dispute arises out of an alleged employment contract between Appellant Robert Gray and Respondents Tri-Way Construction Services, Inc., a Washington corporation; and Ray Allard, Kathy Peterson and Gary Peterson, as individuals (collectively Tri-Way). Gray appeals from the district court‘s order of summary judgment in favor of Tri-Way on his breach of contract, equitable estoppel, statutory

Plaintiff Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc., a debt collector, brought this action to collect $3,990.57 in principal, interest, and attorney fees on a guaranty of a student loan that defendant signed for a friend, Armani. (1) Plaintiff alleged that it had been assigned a claim for the principal of the loan by the creditor, United States National Bank (US Bank). Defendant's amended answe

¶1 In this opinion, we address whether a court may consider a real estate agent’s inequitable conduct in deciding if the agent’s principal is entitled to specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. We conclude that the agent’s inequitable acts may be imputed to the principal whether or not the principal knew of the agent’s misconduct.

I

¶2 Daniel Harvey

We must decide whether the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects an internet service provider from suit where it undertook to remove from its website material harmful to the plaintiff but failed to do so.

I

This case stems from a dangerous, cruel, and highly indecent use of the internet for the apparent purpose of revenge.1 In late 2004, Cecilia Barnes broke off a lengthy relat

Tapestry Village Place Independent Living, L.L.C. (Tapestry) appeals and Village Place at Marion, L.P. (Village Place), Development Group, L.L.C., Thomas Miller, Craig Miller, and Douglas Miller cross-appeal from district court rulings in an action arising from the sale of an independent living facility. We affirm the judgment of the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. In 1988 Vil

Shirley Denen (“Denen”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of Martin, Malec & Leopold, P.C. (“MM & L”) awarding MM & L $5,510.00 and $2,275.63 in prejudgment interest on its petition for collection of fees on account. MM & L has also filed two motions to dismiss, which have both been taken with this case. We find the appeal is untimely. We remand to the trial court and d

An Iowa attorney brought a class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeowners against the manufacturer of roofing shingles and its president. The action asserted seven theories of recovery, most of which were based in contract. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer and its president, the president requested sanctions against the attorney who filed the class actio

[¶1.] Kernelburner, LLC, Paul Iburg and Paul Hofer, Jr. (collectively Sellers) initiated an action for breach of contract against MitchHart Manufacturing, Inc., Scott Paulson, Chad Clites, Mike Fokken, and Scott Fokken (collectively Buyers) for failure to pay the final payment of $89,039.26 on an installment purchase agreement. Buyers counterclaimed for breach of contract, conversion, fraudulent

Nitro Distributing, Inc., West Palm Convention Services, Inc., Netco, Inc., Schmitz & Associates, Inc., and U-Can-II, Inc., (collectively, appellants), appeal from the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to Alticor, Inc., Amway Corporation, and Quixtar, Inc., (collectively, Amway); dismissal of appellants’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims; and various ad

This suit involves claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation brought by two limited liability companies (“LLCs”), all owned an controlled by a single member, who also brings suit individually, against the seller and manufacturer of a piece of heavy equipment. The plaintiffs appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

In simplest terms, this suit is a c

{¶1} Defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Cellco Partnership, d.b.a. Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), and plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants Craig Cowit, Daniel Statman, Barry Koblenz, and Joseph Gramada (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the trial court’s ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

{¶2} Plaintiffs, customers of Verizon, had requested certification of two di

{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant the Gator Development Company (“Gator”) appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment dismissing several claims and two individual defendants who had been sued in their personal capacity in a multi-claim and multi-party lawsuit involving an agreement for the sale of real property commonly known as Harper’s Point. We conclude that the trial court erred

Is a Florida law firm that referred a Florida resident=s case to a Texas lawyer for filing in New York subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas? Because we hold that the Florida firm did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction over it by a Texas court, we answer the question Ano.@ We reverse the trial court=s order denying the Florida law

The plaintiff, Centimark Corporation (Centimark), commenced this action against the defendant, Village Manor Associates, Limited Partnership (Village Manor), seeking, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien that it had placed on Village Manor’s real property after Village Manor had failed to pay Centimark for services rendered in installing a roof. Village Manor, alleging problems with the

This case arises out of events surrounding the tragic loss of a child. If there are those of us who have not been the parent, we have all been the child. That experience teaches us that there is no closer human bond nor a more painful loss. Although the enormity of such a loss is easily comprehensible to anyone with knowledge of the human condition, the trial judge, armed with such knowledge, none

The plaintiff, Gebrehiwet Mokonnen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendant, Pro Park, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court’s interrogatories to the jury were erroneous. We decline to review the plaintiff’s claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history

The issue in this case is whether a three-sentence letter from a company in the business of issuing performance and payment bonds on construction projects creates an obligation on the part of the company to issue $17 million in bonds in connection with a construction project, or whether the letter was a "bondability letter" indicating to the owner of the construction project that its chosen builde

This appeal arises from a judgment that denied Heartland Chevrolet, Inc.’s (“Heartland”) motion to dismiss or compel arbitration on claims filed by Kristyn and Michael Krueger (“Kruegers”). Heartland contends the circuit court erred in denying the motion because there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. For reasons explained herein, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCED

Donald Bryant, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s Order and Judgment dismissing his Amended Petition against Smith Interior Design Group, Inc. (Smith Interior) and William Kopp (Kopp) (collectively, Respondents) for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

Background

Appellant, a Missouri resident, sought the services of Smith Interior, a Florida interior design compan

Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) asserted a subrogation claim against Transgroup Express, Inc. (Transgroup). In response, Transgroup filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a statute of limitations defense. Hartford, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination of Transgroup's liability. The district court granted Transgroup's motion and dismissed the case

A jury found that Plaintiff-Appellant Cedar Hill Hardware and Construction Supply, Inc. (“Cedar Hill”), was not entitled to insurance coverage for fire-related damages because Cedar Hill made material misrepresentations that voided an otherwise applicable policy. Cedar Hill appeals, arguing waiver, error in the jury instructions, and error in the district court’s1 admission of evidence and i

Defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (Connecticut General) appeals from the district court’s decision to enter judgment on the administrative record in favor of plaintiff Kurt Johnson, as beneficiary, on his claim for benefits under an ERISA-governed group supplemental life insurance policy obtained by his wife, Kristen Johnson, less than two years before her death.1 Connecticut