Interbank Investments, L.L.C. v. Vail Valley Consolidated Water District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding the trial court properly found a developer’s breach was nonmaterial when the water districts could not show they were damaged
• applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5 (1)(a)'s six-year statute of limitations where dispute was over amount of compensation owed
• applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5(1)(a)’s six-year statute of limitations where dispute was over amount of compensation owed
• “The amount of damages awarded for a breach of contract cannot be based on speculation or conjecture; rather, it must be established with reasonable certainty by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• where nature of defendants’ obligation is money owed, and the terms of the agreements contain the provisions for determining the amount owed, debt was sufficiently “determinable” for purposes of invoking § 13–80–103.5(1)(a)
• “[A] court ‘will usually grant or withhold relief in analogy to the statute of 9 limitations relating to actions at law of like character.’” (quoting Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 911 F. Supp. 470, 477 (D. Colo. 1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).