|
03-1493 -- Dillons Companies v. Hussman Corp. -- 01/20/2006 (4497 words) |
 | King Soopers claims that the district court erred in submitting comparative negligence to the jury because (1) it owed no duty to Hussmann, and (2) it could not have breached a duty because it was a tenant in the building rather than the owner. |
| King Soopers relies on a line of Colorado cases involving the failure to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets to support its contention that it had no duty and that the district court should not have instructed the jury on comparative negligence. |
| King Soopers advances three arguments: (1) that the lease agreement expressly vests ownership in the improvements in the lessee; (2) that even in the absence of the lease agreement, it owned the improvements under Colorado law; and (3) that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") demonstrate that it was the owner of the improvements. |
| 00-9540 -- National Labor Relations Board v. King Soopers, Inc. -- 12/27/2001 (1183 words) |
| King Soopers claims that the Board views it as a habitual offender of the Act and that court enforcement of the Board's order is sought as a broad sanction against it. |
| King Soopers contends that the Board's immediate access to the court's contempt power is inequitable because it is currently in compliance with the Board's order and because the specific violations are not likely to be repeated. |
| Despite King Soopers' assertions to the contrary, we are unable to distinguish this argument from a mootness argument. |
Feeds |
Contact