Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

John Kaesik v. John E. Mitchell Company, Inc., a Texas corporation

Per Curiam.Page 20

Certiorari was granted to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Kaesik v. Mitchell, 30 Colo. App. 227, 492 P.2d 871. We affirm.

We find it unnecessary to restate the facts which gave rise to the controversy between the parties, as they are succinctly set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, with which we agree.

We conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, after our full review of the record of proceedings, that no prejudicial errors were committed by the trial court, in its conduct of the trial generally or, specifically, in its evidentiary rulings or in the instructions given to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KAESIK v. MITCHELL CO
(Feb 20, 1973)