JerryBaumchen 1,046 #1776 December 21, 2016 Hi Robert, Quote It must be a PITA having a fruitloop for a client. My son is a defense attorney; man, the stories he tells me. Maybe he will right a book for his retirement fund. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1777 December 22, 2016 I think we need a DPREGuy opinion here. It sounds to me like the appellate court has upheld the decision, but is sending it back down to the lower court to reconsider the orders on awarding of legal fees to the defendant. ETA http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_30678502/colorado-court-appeals-sides-mile-hi-skydiving-longmont ETA Entire text of decision (link to CQS website): http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20161222-Appeal-Opinion.pdf See page 15 "Respondeat Superior"; It looks like the court just wants the lower court to elaborate more on the reason for awarding that portion of the award."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #1778 December 23, 2016 Ha! That is awesome!!!you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1779 December 23, 2016 stratostar Ha! That is awesome!!! And just in time for Christmas!"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #1780 December 23, 2016 It's most likely too soon, but I was humming "ding dong the witch is dead the witch is dead, ding dong the wicked witch is dead! LOL you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1781 December 23, 2016 Thanks for posting that. I'd lost my copy after the mods shitcanned previous postings of that one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1782 December 23, 2016 The Times-Call article was revised this morning: http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_30678502/colorado-court-appeals-sides-mile-hi-skydiving-longmont Obviously, Gibbs still hasn't learned a damned thing."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1783 December 23, 2016 Just can't fix stupid when it comes to certain people... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Divalent 89 #1784 December 24, 2016 I noticed in the trial court Judge's order awarding attorney's fees (http://citizensforquietskies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/20150728-Order-re-Defendants-Motion-for-Attorney-Fees.pdf, on page 14) that the amount that she awarded for defending against the "respondeat superior" claims is, at most, $4,884.17, and that likely it would be half that (that amount was a lumped with another claim that they got costs for). This is out of a total of $47,984.41 for attorney's fees that MileHi was awarded. (They were also awarded additional $ for expenses). So I wonder if MileHi will just abandon that part of the award, rather than incur the litigation costs to resolve this one remaining issue in the case. (I'm assuming they wouldn't be entitled to any additional attorney's fees to litigate this to the end.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #1785 December 25, 2016 I wonder if Kim will complain about Santa's sleigh bells tonight? lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #1786 December 25, 2016 ssshhhh...don't tell her that! Her attorneys are paid by the hour! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #1787 December 25, 2016 normiss ssshhhh...don't tell her that! Her attorneys are paid by the hour! To late! Kimmie's already got the sound meter and video recorder set up and ready to go...... Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1788 December 26, 2016 skyjumpenfool ***ssshhhh...don't tell her that! Her attorneys are paid by the hour! To late! Kimmie's already got the sound meter and video recorder set up and ready to go...... If Ebenezer Scrooge had a wife, it would be her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dpreguy 14 #1789 December 28, 2016 All the footnote comment said was that staying under, (or exceeding) the FAA 65 db standard cannot be used as the sole standard for a nuisance in all cases. The general noise standard they did note/confirm was, that to be a nuisance the, " ...noise produced by (X) has to be so offensive, annoying or inconvenient to a degree that a normal person would consider it unreasonable." They noted that this is the statutory standard which is here in Colorado. OK so far, as they simply stated what was already contained in the Colorado statute. Importantly however they continued on, stating that since the City had adopted the Airport Master Plan that DID establish a specific 65db threshold, that in this case it was/is the standard; and stated that the trial court was correct in applying it... This affirms the trial court's legal analysis and her ruling. Fun stuff: They did note the Plaintiffs' sensitivities to airplane noise were greater than those of normal citizens. I read this as a cleverly worded insult, stated in a 'tongue in cheek manner' but worded to be politically correct. They could have come right out and said the Plaintiffs' sensitivities were manufactured for this lawsuit, unreasonable and that the complainants were not normal. They chose the 'gentle landing' wording approach. Pretty funny, actually. In my humble opinion, the Ct Appeals did not have to make a remand/reconsideration of the atty fee award on Respondeat Superior, as there was no award made to plaintiffs. Just because the trial court didn't make comments of the merits of it this issue doesn't warrant a remand. I give them no credit for objectivity on that one. So...atty fees, and the issue itself were sent(remanded) back to the trial court for determination or denial of the Respondeat Superior claim and the atty fees resultant. I think they could have-should have left that one alone. Guess they thought the award of the atty fees on that issue was too mean to Plaintiffs? Respondeat Superior = was (owner personally- or his closely held corporation-Mile Hi), liable for the acts of his contractor/pilots? Still my opinion: The Ct Appeals shouldn't even care since Plaintiffs were awarded no fees or damages. Can't figure out why they sent that non-issue down for determination. In all though, Mile Hi was the clear winner and most of the attys fees were affirmed. It looks to me that the Ct Appeals slapped the Plaintiff's firm down over and over again on the allegations of damages and injuries etc. which were alleged and not proven. Pretty much implied that alleging unprovable-frivolous claims amounts to poor decision making. As I recall, Defendant's appeal atty called it a "shotgun approach". And the Ct Appeals pretty much said so too. More fun stuff: One or two sentence affirmations of the trial court's summary judgement on numerous issues are equivalent to intellectual 'slap downs'. Embarrassing to have an appeals court uses terms like, "..no evidence", "..not meritorious", "..no genuine disputed issue", "no error" over and over. It's like the Ct Appeals graded many of plaintiff's pleading and trial decisions and gave out a bunch of F's. Good victory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #1790 December 28, 2016 Thanks for the analysis!!Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnyCrawford 0 #1791 December 29, 2016 Yes, indeed. I'm glad we've got dpreguy to explain all the legal mumbo-jumbo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1792 December 31, 2016 Oddly, Kimmie just tweeted this link which contradicts the very argument her attorneys were trying to make on appeal: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/us-court-of-appeals-for-the-second-51356/"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpdude 0 #1793 December 31, 2016 I asked quite a bit earlier in this thread, why the hell is she targeting only MHS and not the race track that is closer than the airport, to her, and inherently louder? Seems she has something against aviation, skydiving, or maybe she just thinks that since she has such a pitiful, miserable life, that everyone should have the same! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1794 January 1, 2017 See attachment from the CQS FB page. Show of hands: How many people here know the legend of James "Capt Zoom" Campbell?Here is the video link set to start at the CQS story in that link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdU-0zCeIxQ&t=1m45s Note that the person in the video is not Campbell. And here is a link to the story on Campbell's website: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&ID=7159BB75-C072-4096-A255-77F443E84916 Now in a Gibbs v Campbell squabble, which side do I take? "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,903 #1795 January 1, 2017 QuoteJames "Capt Zoom" Campbell Isn't he the aviation magazine guy with the Trump like penchant for suing anyone who says anything bad about him? Maybe he'll dig into a fight with Kimmy!Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #1796 January 1, 2017 gowlerk Quote James "Capt Zoom" Campbell Isn't he the aviation magazine guy with the Trump like penchant for suing anyone who says anything bad about him? Maybe he'll dig into a fight with Kimmy! That's him!The two best bios on him: By Wanttaja: http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm By Ousterhout: http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #1797 January 1, 2017 oldwomanc6 I wonder if Kim will complain about Santa's sleigh bells tonight? Post of the year! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #1798 January 9, 2017 So are we at the point of her having to go to the SC....how long before she is required to start paying - or file bankruptcy?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #1799 January 9, 2017 I would seriously doubt the SC even hearing the case, it would appear there is no legal reason to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #1800 January 9, 2017 Great. Whens' she got to start paying?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites