Kokins v. Teleflex, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 2003 amendment adding Colo. Rev. Stat. §13-21-403(4) effectively overruled Mile Hi Concrete, Inc. insofar as it concerned instructing jury on rebuttable presumption
• federal courts must be guided by “recent decisions of the state’s highest court” when interpreting state law
• “[A] trial court is obligated to correctly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case.” (quotation omitted)
• “When a panel of this Court has rendered a decision interpreting state law, that interpretation is binding on district courts in this circuit.” (quotation cleaned up)
• “[W]hen a panel of this Court has rendered a decision interpreting state law, that interpretation is binding on district courts in this circuit, and on subsequent panels of this Court, unless an intervening decision of the state’s highest court has resolved the issue.” (alteration in original
• “‘[W]hen a panel of [the Tenth Circuit] has rendered a decision interpreting state law, that interpretation is binding on district courts in this circuit, and on subsequent panels of [the Tenth Doc. 125 at 2 (Pl.’s Mot. to Certify Questions of Law to Kan. Sup. Ct.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).