August 27, 2007
The supreme
court's announcements for today are here.
The court issued no decisions but did grant cert. in the following two
cases:
People v. Versteeg,
No. 07SC80, on these issues:
Whether the court of appeals erred when it supplanted the requirement
that post conviction claims must be of constitutional magnitude to obtain
relief with the plain error standard applicable to direct appeal.
Whether the court of appeals erred when it applied the “settled
law” principle articulated in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S.
461 (1997), to hold that a single court of appeals opinion settled the
law at the time of trial.
Avalanche Industries,
Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, No. 07SC255, on these questions:
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding under the circumstances
of this case that the Workers’ Compensation claimant’s average
weekly wage could be recalculated when her condition worsened, using
the wage she was earning five years later from a different employer.
Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a recalculation of
the claimant’s average weekly wage following the worsening of her
condition, based on her most recent employer’s COBRA costs rather
than the COBRA costs of the Respondent-Employer when she left his employ.
August 24, 2007
I will be having
some shoulder surgery next week, and it's unclear how quickly I will
be able to get back to blogging. I promise to give updates as soon as
I can, but if you're finding none for the next week or so, you'll know
why. Thanks for your patience.
Below are the
summaries for yesterday's published decisions from the court of appeals.
In an appeal
arising from the Redfield site class action, the court of appeals held,
among other things, that admission of tax assessment valuations of homeowners’
properties as evidence of value was not error. The court also held that
reliance on advice of counsel or consultants was not an affirmative
defense or mitigating circumstance in this case, so defendant did not
have to plead it in its answer. The court rejected plaintiffs' contention
that defendant's misconduct in discovery warranted a new trial. The
court did conclude, however, that defendant was not entitled to costs
under C.R.S. § 13-17-202. While defendant made a settlement offer
to homeowners more than fourteen days before the trial, and it exceeded
the judgment received by homeowners, the offer was not apportioned.
As a result, the offer did not properly invoke the cost-shifting provisions
of §
13-17-202. Antolovich
v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.
In an interesting
opinion, the court asks "What happens if a trial court erroneously
refuses to dismiss a potential juror for cause and the defendant later
excuses that juror through a peremptory challenge? The answer depends
on where the case is tried. In federal court, the error rarely results
in reversal. . . . In Colorado, the error almost always results in reversal."
Under People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992), the erroneous
denial of a challenge for cause is
per se fatal if the defendant excuses the potential juror through a
peremptory challenge and exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
In this case, the court of appeals held the trial court erred in failing
to grant a challenge for cause, and a new trial was necessary. The opinion
seems to implicitly invite supreme court review. Judge Webb, in a specially
concurring opinion, seems more explicit: "While I am in agreement
with the majority’s disposition, retrial in this and similar cases
may exact significant social costs. . . . Hence, I write separately
in the hope that if the supreme court grants certiorari in this case,
it will provide additional guidance concerning the following issues.
Such guidance would make appellate decisions on challenges for cause
more predictable and could reduce the risk of trial court error."
It'll be interesting to see if the supreme court grants review. I wouldn't
bet against it. People
v. Merrow
“Set top
boxes” and “low-noise block filters” are separate pieces
of equipment that are owned by EchoStar and leased to EchoStar’s
customers for ultimate use at the customers’ locations, where they
are used together with other equipment for television signal reception
by the customers. The Board of Assessment Appeals found that EchoStar
purchases the boxes and filters separately from different manufacturers,
and they are recorded as separate assets by EchoStar. The undisputed
testimony of EchoStar’s witnesses also indicates that the boxes
and filters have their own component parts, and that EchoStar purchases
the boxes and filters as completely assembled units ready for installation
at a customer’s location. The BAA held, and the court of appeals
affirmed, that this equipment qualified for the property tax exemption
authorized in constitutional and statutory provisions for personal property
held for consumption by a business.
EchoStar
Satellite, L.L.C. v. Arapahoe County Board of Equalization
Because Colorado’s
restitution statutes do not prescribe a maximum restitution amount,
the rule of Apprendi and Blakely does not apply to restitution orders.
C.R.S. § 18-1.3-205 states that “the court shall order that
the defendant make full restitution” , and this includes the victim’s
pecuniary losses and all out-of-pocket expenses. According to §
18-1.3-602(3)(a), restitution is not limited by the jury’s findings
but includes the pecuniary loss suffered by the victim including, but
not limited to, all out-of-pocket expenses and other losses or injuries
proximately caused by an offender’s conduct. People
v. Smith
When the need
for property seized in a case has ended, the trial court has the jurisdiction
and the obligation to order its return and, if necessary, to conduct
a hearing to determine its appropriate disposition. Evidence of seizure
from the defendant is prima facie evidence of his or her ownership of
the property. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court has
ancillary jurisdiction, or inherent power, to entertain a defendant’s
post-sentence motion for return of property and to hold a hearing if
necessary. Judge Marquez dissented, concluded that since defendant did
not file his motion for return of property until several months following
sentencing, the trial court lost jurisdiction to rule on issues regarding
the return of property upon imposition of a valid sentence.
People
v. Hargrave
August 23, 2007
Here
are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued five published
opinions. I hope to summarize those sometime today or tomorrow, but
I have a brief due tomorrow that may delay the summaries a bit. Thanks
for your patience.
Antolovich v.
Brown Group Retail, Inc.
People v. Merrow
EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Arapahoe County Board of Equalization
People v. Smith
People v. Hargrave
August 22, 2007
The supreme
court's oral argument calendar is here.
The court will hear arguments September 11-13. Also, on September 13,
at 3:30, the court will hold a public hearing on amendments to Rules
404, 408 and 609 of the Colorado Rules of Evidence.
The court of
appeals will issue the following decisions tomorrow, including five
published opinions:
Published Opinions
04CA1528 Carol Antolovich, Richard Antolovich, Carolyn Thompson, John
Thompson, Frederick Hall, Susan Jane Lee, and Heidi Groomer, individually
and as class representatives v. Brown Group Retail, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation
05CA2023 People v. Shannon Dean Merrow
05CA2584 EchoStar Satellite, L.L.C. and Colorado State Board of Assessment
Appeals v. Arapahoe County Board of Equalization and Jo Ann Groff, Property
Tax Administrator for the State of Colorado
06CA0209 People v. Stacy A. Smith
06CA0212 People v. James A. Hargrave
Unpublished Opinions
04CA0828 People v. Terry W. Green
04CA2039 People v. Emmitt Rimpson
04CA2377 People v. Gregg L. Gatrell
05CA0260 In re the Marriage of Helena Loewen and William Chin
05CA0747 People v. John Justin Dahmer, Jr.
05CA1037 People v. Jerry Norman
05CA1388 In the Matter of the Estate of Everald G. Nichols, Deceased.
Michael R. Lynch v. Betty Bryant
05CA1600 Hoopeston Foods Denver Corp., a Delaware corporation v. Stokes
Canning Company, a Colorado corporation
05CA2049 People v. Leon Bates
05CA2243 People v. Michael Grodney
05CA2291 People v. Jacob J. Martinez
05CA2515 People v. Valentin S. Ramirez
05CA2705 Mark Johnson v. Freund & Company, Inc.; Denver East Machinery
Company; Duane Freund; Joseph Freund; and Kenneth Freund
05CA2730 People v. Gilbert J. Gonzales
05CA2733 People v. Wayne Michael Klinck, Jr.
06CA0286 People v. Wayne D. Stine
06CA0292 Alberta LeFeber and Debra L. Hughes, as guardians of Nathan
S. Crooks, an incapacitated person v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
06CA0325 People v. Gerry Dwayne Kelly
06CA0384 People v. Manuel De Jesus Coreas, a/k/a Jose H. Gonzalez
06CA0536 In the Matter of the Silvia A.L. Tessadri Trust and Concerning
Rudy Bush v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
06CA0631 People v. Uriah Daniel Wilson
06CA0732 People v. Richardo Lujan
06CA0757 People v. Bruce Richard McMullen
06CA0856 In re the Marriage of Jefferson Martin Jr. and Shanna Martin,
n/k/a Shanna Hughes
06CA0874 Mary Ann Hernandez v. Norman J. Garcia and Mary A. Garcia
06CA0993 In re the Marriage of Kimberly A. Dubray, n/k/a Kimberly A.
Folkins and Marcus M. Dubray
06CA1170 People v. David Thomas
06CA1174 People v. Jesse William Snyder
06CA1289 Major Investments, LLC v. Thomas Little and Janet Little
06CA1413 People v. Robert Eugene Valcik
06CA1460 Board of County Commissioners of the County of Mesa, Colorado
v.
Devere M. Bredvik
06CA1576 In re the Parental Responsibilities of P.A.S. and A.E.S., children
and concerning Thelma Irene Cassel and Philip Edward Stetzel
06CA1633 People v. Ralph Kenneth Gonzales
06CA1794 Bruce C. Wetmore and T. Bernadette Wetmore v. Golden Design
Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation
06CA1914 Kathy Owen v. Lawrence E. Kloberdanz
06CA1989 Joe Nigro and Terry Nigro v. Robert Ehardt
06CA2106 Fern E. Valenzuela v. Linda I. Martineau and Alan F. Martineau
06CA2241 People v. Dante J. Sena
07CA0284 People v. Matthew Valverde
07CA0586 People v. Torriano A. Davis
07CA0619 People In the Interest of T.S.L. and L.L.M., Children, Upon
the petition of the Denver Department of Human Services and Concerning
D.E.T.
August 20, 2007
The supreme
court's case announcements for today are here.
The court did not issue any decisions or grant cert. in any cases.
The court of
appeals' announcements from last Thursday are here.
The court issued only unpublished
decisions.
August 15, 2007
The court of
appeals' argument calendar for October is here.
The court of
appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow:
03CA0520 People v. David Paul Perez
03CA1600 People v. Juan R. Ramirez
04CA0525 & 05CA0304 S.P.F Lease, L.L.C.; and Estate of Terrence
J. O’Connor, deceased, by and through Victoria M. O’Connor,
Personal Representative v. Showa Entetsu Co., Ltd.; and S.P.F Corporation
of America, a Colorado corporation and S.P.F Corporation of America,
a Texas corporation
04CA1462 People v. Demarco Jamaal White
05CA0238 People v. Douglas Lloyd Micco
05CA0516 People v. Gregory Morris
05CA0543 People v. Fidel Gonzalez-Uribe
05CA1776 People v. Wendy Moore-Young
05CA2215 People v. Albert R. Gonzalez
05CA2397 People v. Michael James Dipentino
05CA2480 David Suddarth v. Colorado Department of Corrections and Dennis
Diaz, in his official capacity as Colorado Department of Corrections
Controller
05CA2544 People v. Gilbert Joe Lovato
05CA2621 Janice Smuda and Solarra Flemister v. AMCO Insurance Company,
a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Colorado
06CA0056 People v. Vincent Luis Albo
06CA0059 Marcia Wintibaugh-Wilks v. Michael Dobersen, individually and
in his capacity as the Arapahoe County, Colorado, Coroner
06CA0244 People v. Fernando B. Martinez
06CA0358 People v. Daniel Welch
06CA0493 Renae Mesch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
06CA0636 Richard Boehm v. K.L.C. Management Co., Inc. d/b/a Cowboys
Country and Western Bar
06CA0640 People v. Silvia Ann Johnson
06CA0707 People v. Eugene Gilbert
06CA0721 Steven A. Nadeau v. Karen A. Tinniswood, a/k/a Karen Guthrie
06CA0776 People v. Francisco Coronado-Garcia
06CA1188 People v. Douglas Lee Wolff
06CA1237 Mark Kent v. Susan Helm, Brett Marquez, And Arlene Matta
06CA1408 Charles L. Judd v. State of Colorado, Department of Revenue
06CA1477 P. Stanley Boothe v. John D. LaSalle and George McGrath
06CA1640 Hormoz Pourat v. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA),
Huerfano County Correctional Facility, Arlene Mata, Gerald Renner, and
Colette Wahl
06CA1660 People v. O. D. Woolsey
06CA1738 People In the Interest of A.C., a Child and Concerning K.C.
06CA2210 Jun Aizu, Nathaniel Atkins, Jacqueline Atkins v. Reflections
Home Building, Inc., Thomas L. Bouziden and Concerning Colorado Association
of Home Builders
06CA2236 People and Concerning C.P.C. and Colorado District Attorneys
Council.
07CA0046 Streffco Consultants, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
of the State of Colorado and Susan J. Merna
07CA0064 People v. Michael Candelaria
07CA0699 People In the Interest of T.A.J., and N.L.J., Children, Upon
the Petition of Denver Department of Human Services and Concerning N.M.J.
07CA0705 Ellin S. Massey v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State
of Colorado and F.M. Stark & Company, Profit Systems Inc.
07CA0781 People In the Interest of J.A.L., H.T.N.L., and M.V.A.L.M.,
Children, Upon the Petition of the Denver Department of Human Services
and Concerning A.V.V. and C.A.P.
07CA0823 People In the Interest of J.P., a Child and Concerning D.J.
07CA0945 People In the Interest of I.E.S, a Child and Concerning D.J.S.
a/k/a D.J.K.
August 13, 2007
Here
are today's supreme court announcements. The court issued no new decisions
and did not grant cert. in any cases. The court did issue three modified
opinions, denying rehearing in each case.
August 10, 2007
The supreme
court will release no opinions on Monday.
Yesterday's
court of appeals announcements are here.
The court issued 8 published decisions, summarized below.
C.R.S. §
18-6.5-103(2), negligent bodily injury to an at-risk adult, is not a
sentence enhancer, but instead creates a separate substantive offense.
The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the statute was
unconstitutionally vague. People
v. Lovato
Withdrawing
an earlier opinion in an appeal concerning parenting time, the court
of appeals concluded that the stepfather lacked standing to seek parenting
time and that even if he had standing, he would not be entitled to parenting
time. The court rejected the stepfather's argument that he was entitled
to standing as a "psychological parent." The court of appeals
noted that the “psychological parent” concept is simply a
limited grant of standing that the Colorado legislature has incorporated
in C.R.S. § 14-10-123(1)(c), and it has specific requirements that
must be met. A
nonparent seeking to qualify as a “psychological parent” and
establish standing in Colorado on that basis must satisfy those requirements
and show that he or she has had the physical care of
the child for a period of six months or more, and has commenced the
action within six months of the termination of such physical care. In
the Interest of C.T.G.
The
corporate conveyance statute requires that certain corporate documents,
the articles of incorporation or amendments to the articles, be filed
with the appropriate clerk and recorder if
there is any limitation on the corporation’s general power to convey
real estate. See C.R.S. § 38-30-144(3). If those corporate documents
are not properly filed, the conveyance statute abrogates any protection
that the corporation would otherwise have against a party who “acquires
any interest in or lien upon real property from said corporation.”
Section 38-30-144(4). Plaintiff corporation filed no corporate documents
that would have alerted third parties to any limitation
on (1) its general legal authority to sell real estate or (2) vice president's
authority to execute a deed on the corporation’s behalf. Under
these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot claim, as against a bona fide
purchaser or encumbrancer, that the corporation’s general legal
authority was undermined by the absence of proper shareholder approval.
Svanidze
v. Kirkendall
The trial court
violated defendant’s right to due process by imposing a sentence
in the aggravated range when at the providency hearing the court only
advised defendant of the possibility of a sentence in the presumptive
range. Addressing an issue for remand, the court noted that while the
class of felony of an escape offense depends on whether a defendant
was in custody prior to or after conviction for an underlying crime,
C.R.S. § 18-8-208 does not determine whether a court must impose
a consecutive or concurrent sentence. The court concluded that statute
does not conflict with § 18-8-209, and thus, under § 18-8-209,
a sentence must be imposed consecutively only to a sentence being served
by a defendant at the time of the escape. Accordingly, the court concludes
that a defendant who has entered a guilty plea and is awaiting sentencing
is not serving a sentence for purposes of § 18-8-209. Therefore,
on remand, if the defendant again pleads guilty to escape, or is found
guilty, the court may impose either a concurrent or consecutive sentence.
People
v. Corral
In Colorado,
while a jury may change or modify its verdict until the trial court
accepts the verdict and discharges the jury, the court may not recall
the jurors for this purpose once they leave the
court’s control. Under CRE 606(b), the supreme court has excluded
juror testimony or affidavits divulging juror deliberations, thought
processes, confusion, mistake, intent, or other verdict impeaching grounds.
In addition, a trial court generally may not amend a verdict by altering
the amount of damages awarded by the jury. But the court of appeals
recognized an exception to the
rule that once the trial court discharges the jury it no longer has
jurisdiction to reconvene the jury, specificially, when the jury has
not yet dispersed and there is no evidence that the jury has been subjected
to outside influences from the time of the initial discharge to the
time of reempanelment,
and the jury remains under the de facto control of the court. Therefore,
the court of appeals concluded that the trial court should have amended
the judgment to correct the jury's verdict, which the jury indicated
was not accurate. Hanna
v. State Farm Insurance Company
An additional insured endorsement, limiting the additional insured’s
coverage to “ongoing operations,” does not include“completed
operations” or “completed work” coverage. Weitz
Company, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Company
Court upholds
contempt fines. The trial court’s November 2003 order put defendant
on notice that fines would accrue until he complied with the July 2003
order, and the County’s motion in April 2006 put him on notice
that (1) the County alleged that, as of that time, he had not complied
with the order and that fines as to each of two requirements had accrued
for more than 700 days; and (2) the County was asking the court to determine
the amount of the accrued fines and to enter
judgment in that amount. The County’s motion also included an affidavit
from a county inspector and photographs as proof that defendant had
not purged the contempt. Defendant’s response to the motion included
a general denial and stated that his house had burned down, that he
had had to move various items, and that these circumstances made it
impossible for him to fully comply with the order. The response did
not (1) request an evidentiary hearing; (2) assert that defendant had
complied, even partially, with the contempt order; (3) provide any details
regarding the fire; (4) state that the fire had affected the vehicles
or construction materials; (5) describe any other burdens the fire may
have created; or (6) explain how the fire made it impossible for him
to even partially comply with the July 2003 order. In addition, on appeal,
defendant does not argue that his
8 response raised genuine issues of material fact that required the
trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Under these circumstances,
defendant’s due process rights were not violated when the trial
court entered judgment in the amount of accrued fines without conducting
an
additional hearing. Board
of County Commissioners v. Gurtler
Although
both the CCIOA and Declaration may give the property owners' association
liens for the same unpaid assessments, the association is not barred
from pursuing collection under both.
Rancho
Escondido Property Owners Association v. Redstone Management Company
August 8, 2007
The court of
appeals will release the following decisions tomorrow, including 8 published
opinions:
Published Opinions
04CA1177 People v. Marie Antoinette Lovato
05CA0783 In the Interest of C.T.G., a Child, Upon the Petition of P.G
and T.L.W., and Concerning K.R.W
05CA1699 Georgiy I. Svanidze and Mind Consortium, Inc. v. Jeffrey L.
Kirkendall, Grand Victorian, LLC, and Citywide Banks
05CA1979 People v. Henry Corral
05CA2469 Woodrow Hanna, Jr. v. State Farm Insurance Company
06CA0163 Weitz Company, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company v. Mid-Century
Insurance Company, a California Corporation
06CA0927 Board of County Commissioners for Larimer County, Colorado
v. Dave Gurtler
06CA1739 Rancho Escondido Property Owners Association v. Redstone Management
Company
Unpublished Opinions
03CA0919 People v. Verle James Mangum
04CA0125 People v. Tarina L. Tate
04CA1542 People v. Daniel G. Self
04CA2583 People v. Bruce Wayne Dillow
05CA0250 People v. Daniel C. Anderson
05CA0272 People v. Jennifer D. Harris
05CA0519 People v. David Michael Rome
05CA1020 People v. Robert Shannon Martin
05CA1047 People v. Randy Devargas
05CA1285 People v. Chantel M. Mutchler
05CA1407 People v. Andrea Marie Lockhart
05CA1504 Marriage of Harry Ozols and Sandra Ozols
05CA1999 People v. Robert J. Vinyard
05CA2076 People v. Daniel C. Cobb
05CA2182 People v. Kris Daniel Lebsock
05CA2263 People v. Mark Allen Pagel
05CA2507 People v. Nikki Dawn Rogers
05CA2702 People v. Thomas L. Johnson
06CA0095 Walid Maaliki and Adolf Mueller v. Tynan’s Volkswagen,
Inc. a Colorado corporation and Tynan’s Nissan, Inc., a Colorado
corporation
06CA0104 People v. Larry T. Harris
06CA0337 People v. Joe Brooks Davis
06CA0381 American National General Insurance Company, Colorado Certificate
of Authority No. 1885 v. David F. Rivera, Commissioner of Insurance,
and Colorado Division of Insurance
06CA0404 People v. Hector Jose Gutierrez-Torres
06CA0566 People v. Walter Choi
06CA0754 People v. Roy Jack Pollard
06CA0773 People v. Tammy Sue Tuberville
06CA0867 People v. Kevin William Satterfield
06CA0871 People v. Phillip B. Chiles and Carolyn E. Belmain and Pioneer
General Insurance Company
06CA0916 People v. Seth Flukey
06CA1000 T.S v. People
06CA1029 Marriage of Frances M. Hyde and Kristofer C. Hyde
06CA1077 People v. In the Interest of S.V.K.
06CA1190 People v. Patrick L. Brenner
06CA1482 Marriage of Julie Deanna Schmitt and James Donald Schmitt
06CA1583 Marriage of Amir J. Afshar and Audrey L. Afshar
06CA1630 Amira Bajraktarevic v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado and Gambro, Inc.
06CA2423 David A. Hannuksela v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado and Medicine & Occupational Rehabilitation
06CA2499 People v. Anthony Vaughn
06CA2510 Richard L. Reid v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State
of Colorado and Blockbuster, Inc.
07CA0066 Terra C. Sendejas v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
07CA0190 Barbara J. Barela v.Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado and Dillon Companies Inc d/b/a King Soopers Div.
07CA0302 Larry M. Jones v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State
of Colorado and Summit Ford, Inc.
07CA0350 Paul D. Cunningham v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado; Backdoor Catering; and Paul M. Johnston
07CA0415 People In the Interest of D.J.V. and S.V., Children, and Concerning
S.R.V.
07CA0548 People In the Interest of A.T., A.T. and T.T., Children, and
Concerning A.T. and L.T.
07CA0577 Marcella J. Lively v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the
State of Colorado and Louis Mack Trust/Grosvenor Arms
07CA0584 People v. Leon K. Gladwell
07CA0731 People In the Interest of W.B. and A.B., Children, Upon the
Petition of the El Paso County Department of Human Services, and Concerning
E.F.
07CA0823 People In the Interest of J.P., a Child, and Concerning D.J.
August 6, 2007
The supreme
court's announcements for today are here.
The court issued no decisions and did not grant cert. in any cases.
August 2, 2007
Here
are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued unpublished
decisions only.
August 1, 2007
The court of
appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow:
04CA1807 People v. Jesse Quang Nguyen
04CA2582 People v. Marlon Ricardo Rivera
05CA0253 People v. Todd Phillip Griffith
05CA0437 Dietrich v. Laux
05CA0620 People v. Donald Gordon Acree
05CA0623 People v. Donald Gordon Acree
05CA1198 People v. Francisco Rodriguez Flores, Jr.
05CA1280 People v. Leftwich
05CA1491 People v. Jorge Barra-Quintero
05CA1528 People v. Ernest J. Brim, a/k/a Bernard J. Horne
05CA1550 People v. Robert Paul Hild
05CA2102 Landmark Financial Corporation v.Jimmy Saenz, individually
and d/b/a Jimmy’s Golf Shop
05CA2534 People v. Marcus Palmer
05CA2718 People v. Anna Fierro
06CA0032 People v. Andrew T. Romero
06CA0253 Kevin Huber v. Intrado, Inc.
06CA0380 People v. Ronald Anthony Vashone-Caruso, a/k/a Ronald Hawkins
06CA0422 People v. Sandra Rene Torrence
06CA0667 Dennis D. White v. United Fire & Casualty
06CA0701 FMC Properties, LLC v. Rocky Mountain Building Connection,
LLC
06CA0731 People v. Paul Matthew Cruz
06CA0800 In re the Marriage of Gingras
06CA0816 People v. Kenneth Raymond Zartner
06CA0819 In the Matter of the Estate of Duyne, et al
06CA0873 People v. Cecilia F. Ramos
06CA0878 Packaging Store, Inc. v. Gerald R. Hawkins
06CA0936 People v. Jason Wayne Shriver
06CA1031 Box Elder Investment Company, LP v. City of Aurora, et al
06CA1151 In re the Marriage of Astley/Ehrlich
06CA1156 In the Interest of L.D.G., et al
06CA1201 CFC Construction, Inc. v. Mountain States Mutual Ins. Co.
06CA1256 In re the Marriage of Schmalz
06CA1279 People v. Fraser
06CA1559 People v. Jaime Arana-Delangel
06CA1860 In the Interest of K.C.C., et al
06CA2312 Doug Gruendl v. ICAO, et al
07CA0170 Michael S. Imotichey v. ICAO, et al
07CA0224 Nadia Gudima v. ICAO, et al
07CA0331 People v. Jesse Chavez
07CA0481 People v. Jamie Dominic Sailas
07CA0744 In the Interest of J.B., et al
07CA0757 In the Interest of S.S.M., et al
07CA0862 In the Interest of J.G. and A.G., et al