Hamilton v. Gravinsky

5 Citing cases

  1. Haas v. Lavin

    625 F.2d 1384 (10th Cir. 1980)   Cited 4 times
    Applying Colorado law but also relying on Prosser's Handbook of the Law of Torts

    So, therefore, the plaintiffs have suffered an injury which is the proximate result of a duty imposed by statute for the protection of plaintiff and others similarly situated. The violation of such a statute proves that there was a violation of a duty owed to the plaintiff to protect his property from injury. See Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo. App. 408, 474 P.2d 185, 186-87 (1970), modified on other grounds, 174 Colo. 206, 483 P.2d 385 (1971). See also W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 36 (4th ed. 1971). It cannot be denied that Haas was protected by the statutes.

  2. In re Estate of Lewin

    595 P.2d 1055 (Colo. App. 1979)   Cited 11 times

    The motion and supporting brief, when considered together, were sufficient to apprise the trial court of respondent's contentions. Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo. App. 408, 474 P.2d 185 (1970), modified on other grounds, 174 Colo. 206, 483 P.2d 385 (1971). Inasmuch as we are reversing the entire judgment, we do not consider the issues raised by petitioner on cross-appeal as they will need to be reconsidered if relevant at the new trial.

  3. Catron v. Catron

    40 Colo. App. 476 (Colo. App. 1978)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that a statutorily required factual finding "was implicit in the trial court's rulings"

    We disagree. Richard's motion for a new trial, when taken together with his detailed memorandum brief in support of the motion, was sufficient to apprise the trial court of his arguments. See Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo. App. 408, 474 P.2d 185, aff'd, 174 Colo. 206, 483 P.2d 385. Our review of the record also discloses that, contrary to Cynthia's allegations, Richard's motion for a new trial and notice of appeal were timely filed.

  4. Monte Verde v. Moore

    539 P.2d 1362 (Colo. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times
    Requiring justifiable reliance and distinguishing it from reasonable reliance

    While this memorandum is not included in the record on appeal, there does appear the transcript of plaintiffs' argument at the hearing on the motion for new trial which makes clear that the attention of the trial court was directed to the issues raised now on appeal, and which we proceed to review. See Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo.App. 408, 474 P.2d 185, Modified on other grounds, 174 Colo. 206, 483 P.2d 385.          II.

  5. Sanchez v. Staats

    34 Colo. App. 243 (Colo. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    Considering the wording of this ordinance, it is not entirely clear that defendant, who was entering the street from the alley, is a member of the class which the ordinance was enacted to protect, particularly in view of Denver Revised Municipal Code 515.3-1 (quoted below). See Hamilton v. Gravinsky, 28 Colo. App. 408, 474 P.2d 185, modified, 174 Colo. 206, 483 P.2d 385. However, even assuming that plaintiff violated the ordinance and that defendant was a member of the protected class, such violation is not necessarily negligence per se.