Court Opinion

ID: 9569710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:16:36.944026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:48.149208
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. As the majority points out, the issues are similar to those which the court resolved in Van Schaack and Co. v. District Court, 189 Colo. 145, 538 P.2d 425. I dissented in the Van Schaack case, and I do not interpret Canon 2A of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct as a restriction on my right to dissent in this case.
The facts are crucial to the determination of the in personam jurisdiction issue which is before us in this case. In my opinion, the majority of the court extended the long-arm statute beyond the limitations imposed by the legislature and the minimum contacts requirements which are essential to due process of law.
In my view, it is the duty of a justice to dissent when in his considered judgment his brethren on the court are in error. Canon 2A of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct does not, in my opinion, restrict a justice to one dissent on an issue which has been reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court.
In reaching the question of jurisdiction, each case must be decided on its own facts. Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F. Supp. 537 (D.C. Colo. 1965).
Accordingly, I again dissent.