The published cases listed here contain a brief description of the cause of action and the appeal court's ruling. In every case listed Ray Solot represented the client in the lower court and in the appeals court.

Gonzales v. Martinez et al, 403 F.3d 1179 (C.A. 10th Cir. 2005).  In this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 involving a sexual assault in the Huerfano County Colorado jail we gained a reversal of the summary judgment entered against the plaintiff in the United States District Court. The case was settled in 2006.

Gorman v. Carpenters' and Millrights' Health Benefit Trust Fund, 410 F.3d 1194 (C.A. 10th Cir. 2005).  Represented the plaintiff in a claim of bad faith on the part of the trustees in an Erisa health plan who forced the plaintiff to pursue a third party personal injury case at his own expense.  The court of appeals upheld the trial court's ruling of bad faith on the part of the trustees of the health plan.

In re Sweeney, 341 B.R. 35, 10th Cir. BAP (Colo.) April 21, 2006.  Represented the debtor in an adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court concerning the dischargeability of a restitution order issued by the juvenile court of Arapahoe County, Colorado.  The bankruptcy appellate panel reversed the bankruptcy court and ruled for the debtor and against the Colorado Judicial Department holding that a juvenile court adjudication of delinquency did not fall within the conviction of a crime exception to dischargeability of a restitution order under 42 U.S.C. 1328(a)(3). The Colorado Judicial Department has appealed this decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lyons Savings & Loan Association v. Dire Lock and Key Company et al, 885 P.2d 345 (Colo. App. 1994).  This case sets forth the principles of judicial estoppel and what must be proved in order to hold a partnership and other partners liable for the judicial statements of a partner.

J&S Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, 825 P.2d 1020 (Colo. App. 1992).   In this case the court of appeals ruled against the plaintiffs and held that all clauses of a premises liability insurance contract must be considered together in order to determine if one particular clause is explained modified, limited or controlled by any other clause.  The court also reiterated the rule of law that exclusionary clauses in insurance contracts must be strictly construed against the insurer and can be invoked only if they unambiguously and unequivocally negate coverage.

Colorado Performance Corporation et al v. Mariposa Associates et al, 754 P.2d 401 (Colo. App. 1987).  The court of appeals in ruling for the plaintiffs held that under the "benefit of the bargain" rule for awarding damages for fraud in the sale of property the plaintiffs were entitled to receive the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of purchase and its value at that time had the representations been true.

Wynn v. Adams County Bank, 761 P.2d 234 (Colo. App. 1988).  The court of appeals ruled that under the Uniform Commercial Code, 4-9-503 C.R.S. a creditor could enter a furniture store to liquidate its security interest in inventory without judicial process, and that this did not constitute a wrongful seizure of the store.

In re Marriage of Hiner, 710 P.2d 488 (Colo. 1985).  In this case the supreme court upheld the ruling of the court of appeals ruling that the trial court had the right to order the husband to convey his interest
in the former family home to the wife several years after the divorce in order to settle the husband's debt to the wife for property which he concealed at the time of the divorce.

In re Marriage of Weiss, 695 P.2d 778 (Colo. App. 1984).  The court of appeals ruled that although a division of property in a dissolution need not be equal, a division of property which potentially could leave the husband with a negative net worth of $119,000, while the wife would have a positive net worth of $38,000 was facially unfair and inequitable.

Coady v. Worrell et al, 689 P.2d 1375 (Colo. App. 1984).  The court of appeals ruled that a public entity can be estopped from raising lack of notice as a defense and may also waive such notice requirements.

Meiter v. Cavanaugh, 40 Colo. App. 454, 580 P.2d 399 (1978).  This case is an often cited case for the tort of outrageous conduct. The court of appeals in rejecting the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in not granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, held that while anyone of the defendant's acts may not have been considered outrageous as a matter of law, the combination of his acts made the denial of his motions by the trial court correct.

Hill v. Sleep Products, Inc., 41 Colo. App. 133, 584 P.2d 93 (1978).  Statutes are to be given their clear and unambiguous meaning.

Masterson v. McCroskie, 194 Colo. 460, 573 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1978).  The supreme court ruled that delivery of home plans to a contractor for construction of the home did not constitute a general publication of the plans and loss of the home owners' common law copyright.

Jones v. King Resources, 32 Colo. App. 56, 509 P.2d 814 (1973).  In this case involving an oil and gas finder's fee the court of appeals ruled that a finder's fee in a non exclusive brokerage situation the finder must give notice of his participation prior to consummation of the deal in order to earn a finder's fee.

Mees v. Canino, 31 Colo. App. 514, 503 P.2d 1036 (1972).  The written portion of a negotiable instrument overrides an ambiguity in the numerals.