Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
O'BRIEN v. Village Land Co.green2 sentences2015Thus, the court said, "[elxceptions inserted into a covenant of warranty are intended only to protect the grantor on the warranty and are not intended as a limitation on the fiature of the inter-conveyed by the granting clause." Id. 125 The Furrow Defendants' reliance on O'Brien is misplaced because the habendum clause with which they take issue here is not a warranty clause. - 126 A "warranty clause" is a "contractual clause containing a warranty" whereby "the lessor guarantees that title is without defect. and agrees to defend it." Black's Law Dictionary 1823 (10th ed. 2014). 2009O'Brien v. Village Land Co., 794 P.2d 246, 251 (Colo.1990) (granting clause defines and designates the interest conveyed; warranty clause defines the scope of the guarantee made by the grantor to the grantee). | 1 | 2 |
Claridge v. Phelpsgreen2 sentences2015Comm'rs, 214 P.3d 574, 578 (Colo.App.2009), a habendum clause may also de-seribe the nature of the interest conveyed; . a habendum clause may define, explain, or qualify the premises described in a granting clause, see, eg., Claridge v. Phelps, 105 Ind. App. 344 , 11 N.E.2d 503, 504 (1937) ("The premises of a deed are often expressed in general terms, admitting of various explanations in a subsequent part of the deed. 2015Comm'rs, 214 P.3d 574, 578 (Colo.App.2009), a habendum clause may also de-seribe the nature of the interest conveyed; . a habendum clause may define, explain, or qualify the premises described in a granting clause, see, eg., Claridge v. Phelps, 105 Ind. App. 344 , 11 N.E.2d 503, 504 (1937) ("The premises of a deed are often expressed in general terms, admitting of various explanations in a subsequent part of the deed. | 1 | 1 |
Premier Bank v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2015Comm'rs, 214 P.3d 574, 578 (Colo.App.2009), a habendum clause may also de-seribe the nature of the interest conveyed; . a habendum clause may define, explain, or qualify the premises described in a granting clause, see, eg., Claridge v. Phelps, 105 Ind. App. 344 , 11 N.E.2d 503, 504 (1937) ("The premises of a deed are often expressed in general terms, admitting of various explanations in a subsequent part of the deed. | 1 | 1 |
Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.green2 sentences2010Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer's expectations...." Id. at 872, 106 S.Ct. 2295 ; see also Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill.2d 21 , 224 Ill.Dec. 484 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 52 (1997) (following East River and Seely; distinguishing product liability cases on the basis of the nature of the defect and the manner in which the injury occurred: "Losses resulting from damage to the product itself caused by the product's failure to function properly can be recovered only through an action for breach of warranty."). 2010Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer's expectations...." Id. at 872, 106 S.Ct. 2295 ; see also Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill.2d 21 , 224 Ill.Dec. 484 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 52 (1997) (following East River and Seely; distinguishing product liability cases on the basis of the nature of the defect and the manner in which the injury occurred: "Losses resulting from damage to the product itself caused by the product's failure to function properly can be recovered only through an action for breach of warranty."). | 1 | 1 |
Million v. Botefurgreen1 sentence2009See Mil- *579 Kon v. Botefur, 90 Colo. 348, 345 , 9 P.2d 284, 284 (1982) (clear unequivocal language in a granting clause controls contradictory terms in other clauses); Millage v. Churchill, 69 Colo. 457, 460-61 , 195 P. 107, 109 (1921) (granting clause controls); see also Hruby v. Wayman, 230 Towa 658, 298 N.W. 639, 640-41 (Iowa 1941) (covenants do not control the granting clause}. | 1 | 1 |
Hruby v. Waymangreen1 sentence2009See Mil- *579 Kon v. Botefur, 90 Colo. 348, 345 , 9 P.2d 284, 284 (1982) (clear unequivocal language in a granting clause controls contradictory terms in other clauses); Millage v. Churchill, 69 Colo. 457, 460-61 , 195 P. 107, 109 (1921) (granting clause controls); see also Hruby v. Wayman, 230 Towa 658, 298 N.W. 639, 640-41 (Iowa 1941) (covenants do not control the granting clause}. | 1 | 1 |
Millage v. Churchillgreen2 sentences2009See Mil- *579 Kon v. Botefur, 90 Colo. 348, 345 , 9 P.2d 284, 284 (1982) (clear unequivocal language in a granting clause controls contradictory terms in other clauses); Millage v. Churchill, 69 Colo. 457, 460-61 , 195 P. 107, 109 (1921) (granting clause controls); see also Hruby v. Wayman, 230 Towa 658, 298 N.W. 639, 640-41 (Iowa 1941) (covenants do not control the granting clause}. 2009See Mil- *579 Kon v. Botefur, 90 Colo. 348, 345 , 9 P.2d 284, 284 (1982) (clear unequivocal language in a granting clause controls contradictory terms in other clauses); Millage v. Churchill, 69 Colo. 457, 460-61 , 195 P. 107, 109 (1921) (granting clause controls); see also Hruby v. Wayman, 230 Towa 658, 298 N.W. 639, 640-41 (Iowa 1941) (covenants do not control the granting clause}. | 1 | 1 |
Barefield v. La Salle Coca-Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences1974See, e. g., Barefield v. LaSalle Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 370 Mich. 1 , 120 N.W.2d 786 ; Erdman v. Johnson Bros. 1974See, e. g., Barefield v. LaSalle Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 370 Mich. 1 , 120 N.W.2d 786 ; Erdman v. Johnson Bros. | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank of Denver v. Allardgreen1 sentence1973See First National Bank v. Allard, Colo.App., 506 P.2d 405 . (announced October 31, 1972.) We hold that in the construction of deeds, the use of the word "excepting" in the granting clause either recognizes a previous severance of an estate in the land or, as in this case, creates a presumption that the grantor intended to accomplish what is technically done only by reserving. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer's expectations...." Id. at 872, 106 S.Ct. 2295 ; see also Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 177 Ill.2d 21 , 224 Ill.Dec. 484 , 682 N.E.2d 45, 52 (1997) (following East River and Seely; distinguishing product liability cases on the basis of the nature of the defect and the manner in which the injury occurred: "Losses resulting from damage to the product itself caused by the product's failure to function properly can be recovered only through an action for breach of warranty."). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kynerd v. Hulen
green
1 sentence1990The purpose of a granting clause is “to define and designate the estate conveyed.” Kynerd v. Hulen, 5 F.2d 160, 161 , (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 269 U.S. 560 , 46 S.Ct. 20 , 70 L.Ed. 411 (1925). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
White v. Mississippi Order Buyers, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990In granting summary judgment, the court relied on White v. Mississippi Order Buyers, Inc., 648 P.2d 682 (Colo.App.1982), ruling that the time which had elapsed before the Bank gave Whetstone notice of the warranty claim was unreasonable. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Sylvester Hansen v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
green
1 sentence1974Brown v. Chapman, supra ; Bahlman v. Hudson Motor Car Co., supra ; Hansen v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6th Cir., 276 F.2d 254 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Brown v. Chapman
green
1 sentence1974Brown v. Chapman, supra ; Bahlman v. Hudson Motor Car Co., supra ; Hansen v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6th Cir., 276 F.2d 254 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jamison v. Niel Nohr Automobile Co.
neutral
2 sentences1950These documents contain the warranty clause hereinbefore set out, in which it is clearly stated that this warranty is in lieu of all other warranties express or implied, and is almost identical with the written warranty set out in the case of Jamison v. Niel Nohr Automobile Co., 77 Colo. 85 , 234 Pac. 695 . 1950These documents contain the warranty clause hereinbefore set out, in which it is clearly stated that this warranty is in lieu of all other warranties express or implied, and is almost identical with the written warranty set out in the case of Jamison v. Niel Nohr Automobile Co., 77 Colo. 85 , 234 Pac. 695 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.