5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp.green2 sentences2013See Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶¶ 15-16 , 300 P.3d 963 . 2013See Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶¶ 15-16 , 300 P.3d 963 . | 1 | 1 |
Connes v. Molalla Transport System, Inc.green1 sentence2013Sys., Inc., 831 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Colo.1992) ("A duty of reasonable care [in tort] arises when there is a foreseeable risk of injury to others from a defendant's failure to take protective action to prevent the injury." (emphasis added)). {16 Our analysis is not altered by plaintiff's argument that the limitation-of-liability clause contained in the Service and Refrigerant Reports would preclude it from obtaining full recovery for consequential damages under contract law. | 1 | 1 |
LDCIRCUIT, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co., LPgreen1 sentence2012App.1991) (exculpatory clause in a telephone directory contract); but see Rent-All Shops, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 849 F.2d 606 , 1988 WL 60581, *1-2 (4th Cir. No. 87-1119, Mar. 11, 1988) (unpublished table opinion) (per curiam) (applying South Carolina law) (affirming without explanation the district court's rejection of the argument that a willful breach of contract barred enforcement of a limitation of liability clause in part because the clause was voidable only for unconscionability); LDCircuit, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP., 364 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1258 (D.Kan.2005) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
Honeywell, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.green1 sentence2012Honeywell, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 43 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1079-80 (D.Minn.1999) (applying Alabama and Minnesota law) (because an exculpatory clause cannot release a party from liability for willful or wanton acts, a limitation of liability clause also does not apply to such acts); Lenny's, Inc. v. Allied Sign Erectors, Inc., 170 Ga. App. 706 , 318 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1984); see Campmor, Inc. v. Brulant, LLC, 2011 WL 2745922 , *6 (D.N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Nahra v. Honeywell, Inc.green1 sentence2012No. 09-5465(WHW), July 12, 2011) (unpublished opinion) (applying Ohio law) (a limitation of liability provision will be upheld " 'so long as the party invoking the provision has not committed a wil[l]ful or reckless breach'" (quoting Nahra v. Honeywell, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 962, 969-70 (N.D.Ohio 1995))); cf. Onconome, Inc. v. University of Pittsburgh, 2010 WL 1133425 , *3 (W.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
Lenny's, Inc. v. Allied Sign Erectors, Inc.green2 sentences2012Honeywell, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 43 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1079-80 (D.Minn.1999) (applying Alabama and Minnesota law) (because an exculpatory clause cannot release a party from liability for willful or wanton acts, a limitation of liability clause also does not apply to such acts); Lenny's, Inc. v. Allied Sign Erectors, Inc., 170 Ga. App. 706 , 318 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1984); see Campmor, Inc. v. Brulant, LLC, 2011 WL 2745922 , *6 (D.N.J. 2012Honeywell, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 43 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1079-80 (D.Minn.1999) (applying Alabama and Minnesota law) (because an exculpatory clause cannot release a party from liability for willful or wanton acts, a limitation of liability clause also does not apply to such acts); Lenny's, Inc. v. Allied Sign Erectors, Inc., 170 Ga. App. 706 , 318 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1984); see Campmor, Inc. v. Brulant, LLC, 2011 WL 2745922 , *6 (D.N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Niccoli v. Denver Burglar Alarm, Inc.green1 sentence2008Sonitrol argues that a limitation of liability clause in a burglar alarm contract is in reality a liquidated damages clause, relying on Niccoli v. Denver Burglar Alarm, Inc., 490 P.2d 304, 306 (Colo.App.1971) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(F)) (holding provision was liquidated damages clause rather than penalty). | 1 | 1 |
Barker v. Colorado Reg.-Sports Car Club of Am., Inc.green2 sentences1976See Barker v. Colorado Region-Sports Car Club of America, Inc., 35 Colo. App. 73 , 532 P.2d 372 (1974). 1976See Barker v. Colorado Region-Sports Car Club of America, Inc., 35 Colo. App. 73 , 532 P.2d 372 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Ivan Leonard Marragreen1 sentence2012App.1991) (exculpatory clause in a telephone directory contract); but see Rent-All Shops, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 849 F.2d 606 , 1988 WL 60581, *1-2 (4th Cir. No. 87-1119, Mar. 11, 1988) (unpublished table opinion) (per curiam) (applying South Carolina law) (affirming without explanation the district court's rejection of the argument that a willful breach of contract barred enforcement of a limitation of liability clause in part because the clause was voidable only for unconscionability); LDCircuit, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP., 364 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1258 (D.Kan.2005) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
The Rent-All Shops, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation and Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc.yellow1 sentence2012App.1991) (exculpatory clause in a telephone directory contract); but see Rent-All Shops, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 849 F.2d 606 , 1988 WL 60581, *1-2 (4th Cir. No. 87-1119, Mar. 11, 1988) (unpublished table opinion) (per curiam) (applying South Carolina law) (affirming without explanation the district court's rejection of the argument that a willful breach of contract barred enforcement of a limitation of liability clause in part because the clause was voidable only for unconscionability); LDCircuit, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP., 364 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1258 (D.Kan.2005) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson Insurance & Real Estate Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1976NOTES [1] Additional cases upholding the limitation of liability clause in yellow pages advertising contracts include: Robinson Insurance & Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 416 , 246 P.2d 686 (1952); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
green
1 sentence1976Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App.1967); Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 208 Md. 245 , 117 A.2d 873 (1955); Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 298 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. 1957); Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.1968); State ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1976Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App.1967); Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 208 Md. 245 , 117 A.2d 873 (1955); Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 298 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. 1957); Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.1968); State ex rel. 1976Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App.1967); Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 208 Md. 245 , 117 A.2d 873 (1955); Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 298 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. 1957); Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.1968); State ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
green
1 sentence1976Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App.1967); Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 208 Md. 245 , 117 A.2d 873 (1955); Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 298 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. 1957); Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.1968); State ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Wilson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
neutral
1 sentence1976Co., 194 So.2d 739 (La.App.1967); Baird v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 208 Md. 245 , 117 A.2d 873 (1955); Mitchell v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 298 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App. 1957); Warner v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 428 S.W.2d 596 (Mo.1968); State ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
green
2 sentences1976NOTES [1] Additional cases upholding the limitation of liability clause in yellow pages advertising contracts include: Robinson Insurance & Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 416 , 246 P.2d 686 (1952); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. 1976NOTES [1] Additional cases upholding the limitation of liability clause in yellow pages advertising contracts include: Robinson Insurance & Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 416 , 246 P.2d 686 (1952); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
green
1 sentence1976NOTES [1] Additional cases upholding the limitation of liability clause in yellow pages advertising contracts include: Robinson Insurance & Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 416 , 246 P.2d 686 (1952); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co. of Fla.
neutral
1 sentence1976NOTES [1] Additional cases upholding the limitation of liability clause in yellow pages advertising contracts include: Robinson Insurance & Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Cole v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 416 , 246 P.2d 686 (1952); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Telephone Co., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla.App.1966); Neering v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 169 F.Supp. 133 (S.D.Fla.1958); Wilson v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad
green
1 sentence1961Co., 112 U.S. 331 , and emphasizes that the limitation of liability rule sometimes finds validity even in common carrier cases. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.