catalogs in Florida, the activity at issue here. Although Sharper Image made all of the arrangements concerning the mailing of the catalogs from its California headquarters, Sharper Image nevertheless supplied the addresses for the catalogs and directed that those catalogs be placed in the United States mail. See Sharper Image Corp. v. Miller, 42 Conn.App. 310, 678 A.2d 977, 980 (1996) (“The plaintiff’s control was the direction; relinquishing the right to withdraw or redirect does not for purposes of ‘ownership’ relinquish control.... By directing the shipping of the catalogs, Sharper Image retained ownership, even though it relinquished physical possession to the postal service.”), aff'd, 240 Conn. 531, 692 A.2d 774 (1997); Talbots, Inc. v. Schwartzberg, 928 P.2d 822 (Colo.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Sharper Image thus caused its catalogs to be
holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law holding a city liable for the unconstitutional firing of two clerks by a municipal judge when it was clear the city had delegated to him final administrative authority over employment matters holding that distribution of catalogs to city addresses constituted use within city subject to taxation under municipal code provision holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract