February 24, 2011 Archives - CBA CLE Legal Connection

Thanks for a Great Year… And Check out Our Redesign

February 24, 2011 by Alli Gerkman Leave a Comment

This week, we unveiled a whole new look for CBA-CLE Legal Connection. If you subscribe to the site by email or RSS and haven’t stopped by yet, take a look and let me know what you think. We’ve given you all new ways to access our daily posts and archives, whether you’re looking for information by type (case law, legislation, etc.), by practice area, or by timeliness.

But it wasn’t until right after we launched the new design that it dawned on me: it’s been a year since we launched the site.

A year and around 775 posts ago, we started this because we wanted a timely and effective way to share the non-stop flow of relevant legal updates we were finding in the course of our program planning, book editing, and everyday conversations with the hundreds of Colorado lawyers who flow in and out of our classroom each week. Today, we continue to share that information, but we also stay connected to key government, judicial, and news sites to alert you to important changes–like revised state judicial forms, updated court rules, and new regulations–as they happen. Loyal readers know we also share select forms and materials pulled right from our books and course materials. This redesign is just one more way we’re trying to make practice-relevant information even more accessible to Colorado lawyers.

Thanks to you, our readers, for showing up, for sharing tips, and for making this a memorable and productive year.

Feedback? Questions? Comment below, email me (agerkman@cobar.org), call me (303-824-5332), or just stop by the next time you’re here for a CLE program or a CBA meeting.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: editor

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 2/24/11

February 24, 2011 by Zachary Willis Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit on Thursday issued one published opinion and no unpublished opinions.

Published

In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Tolliver, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioners’ dwelling, insured by Respondent, was destroyed by fire. Due to misrepresentations by Petitioners, Respondent did not cover the claim and, after extensive litigation, sought attorney fees, which the district court granted. Petitioners claim that the grant of attorneys fees was improper as the Oklahoma statute allowing such fees is in conflict with FCRP 68, and therefore in violation of Erie. However, the Court found that no such conflict exists here. Rule 68 was applicable to Respondent when it made its offer of judgment during trial, but became inapplicable when judgment was made in its favor. Oklahoma law then governed as the applicable substantive law entitling Respondent to attorney fees.