Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free! Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free! While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
	State Courts - Colorado - July 26, 2007
	Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell, Court of Appeals No.: 05CA2712, COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FIVE, July 26, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: The invalidity of the noncompetition provision rendered invalid the employee's agreement not to solicit the employers' customers. Thus, the trial court erred in preliminarily enjoining the employee from soliciting the customers, but not from actively soliciting its employees. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Soto v. Progressive Mt. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 05CA1032, COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION FOUR, July 26, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Summary judgment should not have been granted to an insurer in a contract dispute because it was required to offer both enhanced PIP benefits options to its insureds under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-710; however, they were not entitled to attorney fees under former Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-708 since no contract reformation had taken place. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Titan Indem. Co. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., Court of Appeals No. 06CA0040, COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO, DIVISION ONE, July 26, 2007, Decided View this case - free   Overview: The granting of the insurer's motion to dismiss the additional insured's breach-of-contract action was proper because the language of the contract between the additional insured and the insured limited coverage to losses resulting from the insured's performance. The professional services exclusion contained in the policy applied. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.