July 28, 2006
The supreme
court will issue two decisions on Monday, July 31, No. 06SA174, Danielson
v. Dennis (no orals--issue unknown), and No. 05SC808,
People In the Interest of K.D. (Whether
the juvenile court improperly relied upon father’s criminal conviction,
and the resulting incarceration, to work a forfeiture of his parental
rights.) I
will have summaries of those cases on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week,
as I'll be out of the office on Monday in a deposition.
July 27, 2006
The court of
appeals announcements for today are here.
The court issued two published decisions, summarized below.
Court of appeals
vacates and remands contempt order. The trial court had entered an order
of contempt confining the contemnor for 90 days for knowingly and deliberately
violating a preliminary injunction, but suspended that sentence so long
as the contemnor paid a sum certain before a given date. The court of
appeals concluded that the trial court did not specify whether it was
imposing remedial sanctions, punitive sanctions, or both. Therefore,
the court concluded it was unable to discern the trial court’s
intent from the record. The trial court’s order was not entirely
consistent with the imposition of remedial sanctions because the court
imposed a suspended sentence of fixed duration; nor was it consistent
with the imposition of punitive sanctions because the court did not
expressly find that the conduct was offensive to the court's its authority
and dignity and because the court conditioned the suspended sentence,
in part, on the payment of attorney fees. People
ex rel. Public Utilities Commission v. Entrup
Court of appeals
rejects father's contention that the trial court erred in terminating
his parental rights while at the same time determining that a less drastic
alternative existed as to termination of mother’s parental rights.
In deciding whether to terminate or whether less drastic alternatives
exist, a trial court may recognize differences between the parents,
as well as differences between the children, and base its decision upon
the best interests of the children. The trial court found that permanent
placement with the maternal grandparents was a viable less drastic alternative
to
termination of mother’s parental rights but not as to termination
of father’s parental rights. In making these findings, the court
determined that an ongoing relationship with mother would not be detrimental
to the children. With respect to father, however, the court determined
that an
ongoing relationship would be of no benefit to the children, citing
his lack of financial support, his ineffective parenting abilities,
and his disinclination to effectuate any change in his situation. People
In the Interest of J.L.M.
July
26, 2006
The court of
appeals will issue the following decisions tomorrow:
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 05CA0130 People
ex rel. Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado v. Robert
Entrup
No.: 06CA0454 People In the Interest of J.L.M., J.W.M., J.M., and J.A.M.,
Children, and Concerning J.M.
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 02CA0850 People
v. Allen Miller
No.: 03CA1939 People v. Blake Harold Codding
Nos.: 03CA1973 & 04CA1301 People v. Thien Hoang Nguyen
No.: 03CA1984 People v. Joe A. Wood
No.: 04CA0177 People v. Laurie Y. Edwards
No.: 04CA1180 People v. Mirella Grado-Ochoa
No.: 04CA1907 Kevin R. Gaugler, et al. v. State of Colorado Department
of Agriculture, et al.
No.: 04CA2009 People v. Demetris O'Neal
No.: 04CA2155 Marriage of Beth Leanne McMullen and Robert Wesley McMullen
No.: 04CA2464 People v. Benjamin M. Ames
No.: 04CA2625 People v. Charles Anson Turner
No.: 04CA2649 People v. John M. Minjarez
No.: 05CA0076 People v. Todd Woodward
No.: 05CA0205 People v. Ronald Alexander Montoya
No.: 05CA0247 Terri Dail v. William J. Warren & Son, Inc., d/b/a
National Inspection Services
No.: 05CA0561 People v. Clarence Jackson
No.: 05CA0684 Marriage of Elizabeth Jackson and Scott Jackson
No.: 05CA0716 People v. Dennis Lucero
No.: 05CA0799 People v. Robert Buchanan, III
No.: 05CA0961 People v. William Paul Romero
No.: 05CA1213 People v. Larry Thomas Curtis
No.: 05CA1245 Marriage of Wayne L. Wittenberg and Barbara A. Wittenberg
No.: 05CA1385 People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of State
of Alaska v. Charles E. Webber
No.: 05CA1458 People v. Otto Graham
No.: 05CA2134 Charles A. Persichitte v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office,
et al.
No.: 06CA0621 People In the Interest of A.W., D.W., K.W., N.W., J.W.,
and M.W., Children and Concerning T.W.
No.: 06CA622 People In the Interest of C.L., a Child and Concerning
T.W.
July 21, 2006
The supreme
court will issue no case announcements on Monday.
The court of
appeals' September argument calendar is here.
July 20, 2006
The court of
appeals' announcements for today are here.
The court issued one published decision, summarized below.
In context of
campaign contributions, "coordinating" is defined as "harmonizing
in a common action or effort" and "working together harmoniously."
Applying that definition, the court of appeals held that labor organizations
impermissibly coordinated activities with a campaign for candidate for
state senate. They thereby made illegal contributions to the candidate
under Article XXVIII § 2(5)(a)(IV) of the Colorado Constitution
and thus violated § 3(4)(a) of that article. Rutt
v. Poudre Education Association
July 19, 2006
The court of
appeals will issue the following decisions tomorrow, including one published
decision (in an expedited election law appeal):
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 05CA1718 Wayne Rutt, et al. v. Poudre Education Association, et
al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 04CA1123 People v. Edward C. York
No.: 04CA1315 People v. Melvin T. Anthony
No.: 04CA1506 People v. Angelo L. Beacham
No.: 04CA1629 People v. Leroy Walter Baker
No.: 04CA1959 People v. Mark Allen Tice
No.: 04CA2151 People v. Raul Moreno Chavez
No.: 04CA2209 People v. Wesley T. Short
No.: 04CA2213 In re the Marriage of Allyson Hoover Brittain and Michael
Anthony Brittain
No.: 04CA2226 Tuscany LLC, a Colorado limited liability company v. Shughart,
Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.
No.: 04CA2317 Michael Brittain v. Allyson L. Hoover, f/k/a Allyson Brittain
No.: 04CA2618 People v. Brian M. Frasier
No.: 05CA0037 People v. Steven Alan McGonigle
No.: 05CA0138 People v. Paul Fernandez
No.: 05CA0192 Douglas M. McKenna v. Shelly Piaggio and Piaggio, Inc.,
d/b/a Riverside Mortgage Corporation
No.: 05CA0223 People v. Samuel W. Conley
No.: 05CA0263 Nancie Johnson v. Issam Abdullah Awad, M.D.
No.: 05CA0343 People v. Aaron Williams
No.: 05CA0459 People v. James P. Bailey
No.: 05CA0529 Nathan J. Dunlap v. Robert Thurman, R. Jordan, McLean,
Bauman, Mazey, Larry Reid, and Joe Ortiz
No.: 05CA0594 Shawn R. Rivera v. Rick Soares, warden, et al.
No.: 05CA0599 Karen S. Malloy v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of
the State of Colorado, Lincoln Community Hospital, and Colorado Hospital
Association Trust
No.: 05CA0680 Silva Property, LLC v. Greg Vaniscak
No.: 05CA0791 People v. Roderick Greig
No.: 05CA0927 Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation v. Cherry Creek Collision,
Inc.
No.: 05CA0948 People v. Steven Ryan Barnes
No.: 05CA1041 George Taylor, a/k/a George J. Taylor, Jr. v. RCB Investments,
Inc.
No.: 05CA1099 Eric A. Peper, M.D. v. St. Mary’s Hospital and Medical
Center, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; et al.
No.: 05CA1299 People v. Manuel A. Archuleta
No.: 05CA1513 Diana Krause v. Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor
Vehicle Division
No.: 05CA1667 RSACO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v. RSA
Mid-Range, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
No.: 05CA1726 In re the Marriage of Tracee A. Gingrich and Daniel R.
Gingrich
No.: 05CA1889 In re the Parental Responsibility of D.D.O.-B., a Child,
and Concerning Paul Baca, Jr. and Neva F. Olguin
No.: 05CA1940 People In the Interest of L.M.S., a Child
No.: 05CA2236 Sears Roebuck & Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado
and Mark Pulliam
No.: 05CA2598 People In the Interest of K.H.L.E., M.S.A.E., C.E.B.E.,
and E.A.B.E., Children and Concerning L.M.B.
No.: 06CA0435 People In the Interest of C.R.J., a Child, Upon the Petition
of the Denver Department of Human Services and Concerning R.C.J.
July 17, 2006
The supreme
court's case announcements for today are here.
The court issued no decisions but did grant cert. in one case, No. 05SC749,
Town of Carbondale v. GSS Properties, LLC, on these issues:
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to
raise preemption for the first time by motion for summary judgment,
under the circumstances of this case.
Whether the court of appeals erred in remanding for the defendant to
have an opportunity to establish that Carbondale’s watershed protection
ordinance, as applied in this case, was preempted by an operational
conflict with one or more state statutes.
July 14, 2006
The supreme
court will issue rulings on cert. petitions on Monday, but will not
issue any new decisions.
July 13, 2006
Today's
court of appeals announcements are here.
The court issued 8 published decisions, summarized below.
Prosecutorial
misconduct during closing argument violated defendant's right to due
process and to a fair and impartial jury as to charge of sexual assault
on a child charge. It was improper for the prosecutor to say “Because
I saw [defendant laugh and smile]. What did — talk to your fellow
jurors, because I saw it.” The prosecutor’s attestation regarding
what he saw impermissibly injected the prosecutor’s credibility
into the jury’s consideration of defendant’s demeanor. It
was also improper for the prosecutor to refer to his boss, to assert
that his boss has MS (*the defendant had MS as well), and to imply that
his boss’s experience is somehow relevant to the effect of MS on
sexual desire or function: "Not only were those matters outside
the record and
irrelevant, but the prosecutor’s comment also injected his own
knowledge and credibility into the issue." It was further improper
for the prosecutor to argue that the defendant was "lurking around
at elementary schools," where no record evidence supported that
statement. People
v. Walters
Trial court
properly denied postconviction claims for relief as time-barred. People
v. Shepard
Where complaint
alleged legal malpractice claims, and not probate claims within the
meaning of C.R.S. §13-9-106(1) and § 15-16-201, Denver District
Court had subject matter jurisdiction. Levine
v. Katz (I) In the companion probate court case, the court concluded
that where, as here, legal malpractice claims are brought against the
lawyers who provided estate planning and trust administration services
and the plaintiffs do not seek to recover assets of the estate, the
Denver Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to decide such claims. Jurisdiction
is proper in the Denver District Court. Levine
v. Katz (II)
Develper was
required to file a plat or map under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-201(1) to
create a common interest community. It was irrelevant which version
of § 38-33.3-209(1) the trial court applied because it reached
the correct result under either version of the statute. The trial court
also correctly held that developer failed to comply with the requirements
for maps and plats set forth in § 38-33.3-209(2). Snowmass
Land Company v. Two Creeks Homeowner’s Association, Inc.
District court
erred in concluding as a matter of law that the unambiguous terms of
an open listing contract precluded any award to broker even if he procured
a ready, willing, and able buyer. The trial court erroneously concluded
that, under the contract, a broker is not entitled to a commission if
the seller decides to sell to a third-party buyer not procured by the
broker. Mapes
v. City Council of the City of Walsenburg
Defendant was
sentenced on March 30, 2000, and the period for filing an appeal expired
on May
14, 2000. Because this date fell before Apprendi was announced, defendant's
conviction and sentence were “final” before Apprendi, and
he cannot obtain relief based on an alleged Apprendi/Blakely violation.
People
v. Starkweather
An injury which
occurred at the jobsite during horseplay was compensable under worker's
compensation law. The horseplay was minor and under the circumstances
did not fall outside the scope of employment. Panera
Bread, LLC v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
July 12, 2006
Here
are Monday's announcements from the supreme court. The court issued
no decisions and did not grant cert. in any cases.
The court of
appeals will issue the following decisions tomorrow, including 8 published
opinions:
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 02CA2419 People v. Alan Walters
No.: 04CA1644 People v. Mitchell A. Shepard, Jr.
No.: 04CA2399 Rodney Levine, et al. v. Michael M. Katz, Esq.; et al.
No.: 05CA0024 Snowmass Land Company v. Two Creeks Homeowner’s Association,
Inc.
No.: 05CA0104 Larry Mapes, d/b/a Reata Realty v. City Council of the
City of Walsenburg
No.: 05CA0110 People v. Joseph A. Starkweather
No.: 05CA0490 Rodney Levine, et al. v. Michael M. Katz, Esq.; et al.
No.: 05CA1465 Panera Bread, LLC, et al. v. Industrial Claim Appeals
Office, et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 04CA0155 People v. Melvin P. Rivers
No.: 04CA0169 People v. Armando Frias
No.: 04CA0358 People v. Leon R. Grant
No.: 04CA2439 Courtney Padilla, et al. v. Oscariny Devora-Garcia
No.: 05CA0041 Servicemaster of Arapahoe and Douglas Counties v. Steve
Philpott
No.: 05CA0401 Rockwell Ready-Mixed Concrete, et al. v. Town of Monument
No.: 05CA0451 In re the Marriage of Tammy K. Campbell and Dale L. Campbell
No.: 05CA0673 Rachel Trinen, et al. v. Douglas County Court, et al.
No.: 05CA1338 In re the Marriage of Madeline G. O’Meara v. Patrick
D. O’Meara
July
6, 2006
Here
are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued unpublished
decisions only.
July
5, 2006
There were no
supreme court case announcements this week.
The court of
appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow (no
published opinions will be issued):
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
No.: 02CA2522 People v. Andrew Michael Kachik
No.: 03CA2491 Marriage of Patricia J. Finley and Gary D. Greengard
No.: 04CA0283 People v. Byron J. Robinson
No.: 04CA0529 People v. Daniel Robert Price
No.: 04CA0595 W/J Ranch, Inc. v. Laurence Woznicki, et al.,
No.: 04CA0652 Lollar Enterprises, Inc., f/k/a Accu-Measure, Inc., and
John Lollar v. Medtech Capital Markets, LLC, et al.
No.: 04CA0962 Independent Group Credit Union v. Gary Steinberger, et
al.,
No.: 04CA0977 People v. Ervin Lee Jones
No.: 04CA1138 People v. Robert J. Warner
No.: 04CA2109 In the Matter of the Petition of M.E.C. v. People
No.: 04CA2255 People v. George A. Lopez
No.: 04CA2565 Martin Heit v. Christine Moschetti, et al.
No.: 05CA0012 Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County v. Kimberly
McIntyre, et al.
No.: 05CA0021 Larry Barron v. Department of Labor and Employment, Office
of Field Operations and State Personnel Board
No.: 05CA0441 Consumer Crusade, Inc., a Colorado corporation v. CK Child
Care, Inc.
No.: 05CA0639 Karl J. Farra v. Anna Katherine Ruggles and Larry R. Ruggles
No.: 05CA0670 Marriage of Amber Suppes and Paul Suppes
No.: 05CA0702 Marriage of Ronald D. Gonsoir and Lisa Watts Gonsoir,
n/k/a Lisa Watts
No.: 05CA0724 People v. Leonard C. Baldauf
No.: 05CA0807 People v. Travis D. Bob
No.: 05CA0872 People v. Joe A. Eubanks
No.: 05CA0932 People v. Kenneth M. Spinden
No.: 05CA0993 Barbara McCulloch, et al. v. Vail Summit Resorts, Inc.,
d/b/a Breckenridge Ski Area
No.: 05CA2463 Donna R. Covert v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, et
al.
No.: 06CA0084 Luke Harper v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, et al.
No.: 06CA0414 People In the Interest of A.C.L.C., S.L.M.C., C.J.P.C.,
and S.J.K.C., Children and Concerning J.B. and L.C.
No.: 06CA0607 People In the Interest of D.M., A.S., and D.D.S., Children
and Concerning A.S.