Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Id. at 1234. The defendant sought and we granted cer-tiorari from the court of appeals' judgment. We now consider the issue of whether the defendant in this case owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, II. Standard of Review A. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and supporting documents demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Martini v. Smith, 42 P.3d 629, 632 (Colo.2002) (citing Vail/Arrowhead, Inc. v. Dist Ct., 954 P.2d 608, 611 (Colo.1998)). An appellate court's review of a trial court's order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Vail/Arrowhead, Inc., 954 P.2d at 611; see also Joe Dickerson & Assocs. v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995, 1003 (Colo.2001) (<HOLDING>); Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo (B) recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo (C) holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo (D) holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law (E) holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo
Output (English): holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo