259 P.3d 1287
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- JetAway and One Creative Place sued regarding aircraft services at Montrose Regional Airport; JCP intervened claiming JetAway violated the CCPA; trial court denied CCPA claim for lack of legally protected injury; on appeal, division reversed to address remaining elements; remand ordered to determine if JetAway’s advertising could deceive consumers and impact the public; on remand the trial court found a deceptive trade practice but no significant public impact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether significant public impact is a question of law or fact | JCP argued public impact is a question of fact for the jury | JetAway argued public impact is a question of law for the court | Public impact is a question of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142 (Colo.2003) (defines elements of CCPA and supports factual public impact inquiry)
- Martinez v. Lewis, 969 P.2d 213 (Colo.1998) (guides balancing considerations for public impact)
- Colorado Coffee Bean, LLC v. Peaberry Coffee, Inc., 251 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2010) (discusses whether public impact is law or fact; balancing framework)
- Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196 (Colo.2006) (acknowledges injury element as fact question and supports factual approach to CCPA)
- Colorado Coffee Bean, LLC v. Peaberry Coffee, Inc., 251 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2010) (emphasizes factors in public impact analysis)