United States Tenth Circuit

In the aftermath of the Columbine tragedy, plaintiff's unsuccessfully challenged the validity of a previous settlement agreement on grounds that 1) their attorney did not have express authority to settle, 2) the terms of the settlement were too vague, and 3) they should not be held to the contract because their acceptance was predicated on either a mistake or misrepresentation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/22/2004
• Published 07/22/2004

Judges

• McCONNELL, Circuit Judge., Before EBEL, ANDERSON, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Geoffrey Nels Fieger (Victor S. Valenti with him on the briefs), Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson, P.C., Southfield, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• C. Michael Montgomery (Steven G. Greenlee with him on the brief), Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek, L.L.P., Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Wayne Harris and Katherine Harris., Frank D. Patterson (Gregg E. Kay and Kerri J. Atencio with him on the brief), Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C., Englewood, CO, for Defendants-Appellees Thomas Klebold and Susan Klebold.