United States Tenth Circuit

In an action for breach of a franchise agreement, judgment for Defendant-Counterclaimant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that the franchise agreement was modified, but reversed in part, where the District Court erred in appointing a special master to compute damages because the issue was not too complex for the jury.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/07/2009
• Published 04/07/2009

Judges

• Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Marcy G. Glenn, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, (Christopher A. Crisman, Holland & Hart LLP;  J. Lawrence Hamil and Charles B. Hecht, Hamil/Hecht LLP, Denver, CO, with her on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Daniel M. Reilly (Larry S. Pozner, Sean Connelly, Kent C. Modesitt, and Clare Pennington, with him on the brief), of Reilly Pozner & Connelly LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.