April 30, 2007 The supreme court's announcements for today are here. The court issued four decisions and granted cert. in one case. In an original
proceeding, the supreme court held that C.R.S. § 40-6-113(6) does
not generally require the Public Utilities Commission to include advisory
memoranda in the records of PUC decisions and orders. But when the staff
injects new factual information into the proceedings The mere existence
of a trial court judge’s friendship with a member of a prosecution
team, by In an original
proceeding, the supreme court granted a rule to show cause to consider
the trial court’s order allowing the defendants to interview non-party
medical providers outside of the presence of the plaintiffs. The non-party
medical providers were involved in the medical treatment that is the
basis for the plaintiffs’ malpractice action. The supreme court
discharged its rule to show cause, holding the physician-patient privilege
does not bar the interviews, because the non-party medical providers
are subject to the statutory exception to the privilege covering medical
providers who act “in consultation with” other medical providers
who are sued for malpractice. This exception to the physician-patient
privilege covers information relevant to the malpractice suit that is
acquired by any medical provider who participates in a unified course
of treating the plaintiff-patient along with a sued provider. The court
further held that Samms v. District Court, 908 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1995),
does not require that plaintiffs be permitted to attend the defendants’
interviews with the non-party medical providers. Samms did not create
a blanket rule that a plaintiff is always entitled to attend an interview
of a non-party medical provider. Instead, it held The trial court ordered the suppression of evidence collected by an insurance investigator after determining that the Fourth Amendment applied to the investigator’s search of the crime scene. The supreme court reversed, holding that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search conducted by the insurance investigator. The investigator had an independent motive to search the arson crime scene apart from assisting law enforcement, and the record does not reveal that law enforcement officers encouraged or instigated the investigator to conduct the search to the degree necessary to establish that the investigator was acting as an agent of the government. Absent such agency, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the investigator’s search. People v. Pilkington The court granted cert. in Arko v. People, No. 06SC798, on this question:
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that petitioner’s right to present a defense was not denied when, over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court refused to give the tendered third-degree assault instruction to the jury, based on the court’s holding that defendants have a fundamental constitutional right to decide whether to submit a lesser non-included offense. April 27, 2007 The supreme court will issue the following four decisions on Monday: 06SA213, In Re: Board of County Commissioners of the County of San Miguel v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission 05SC591, Schupper v. People 06SA79, In Re: Reutter v. Weber 06SA327, People v. Pilkington, no orals. Yesterday's court of appeals announcements are here. The court issued only unpublished decisions. April 25, 2007 The court of appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow (no published opinions): No.: 03CA2135 Daniel-Barry Construction, Inc. v. Phillip David Haskett April 23, 2007 Here are today's announcements from the supreme court. The court issued four decisions, summarized below. The court also granted cert. in two cases. The questions presented in those appeals are below the case summaries. The Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) cannot regulate a municipal utility, but if the PUC
makes a finding supported by the record that a home rule city’s
utility service is substantially inadequate and the municipal utility
is unwilling or unable to provide the service, the PUC does have Death sentence
vacated. The supreme court, exercising its jurisdiction to conduct an
independent review of the death sentence of Edward Montour, Jr., held
that Colorado's death penalty statute (18-1.3-1201(1)(a), C.R.S. (2006),
which states that a capital defendant waives his right to a jury trial
on sentencing facts when he pleads guilty) cannot deprive the defendant
of his Sixth Amendment jury trial right on the facts essential to the
death penalty eligibility determination when that defendant pleads guilty.
Montour pled guilty and under the Colorado death penalty statute, his
guilty plea automatically waived his right to have a jury determine
his sentence. The court held that the statute unconstitutionally linked
the waiver of a defendant's jury sentencing right to his guilty plea.
The court therefore affirmed Montour's guilty plea and applied the severability
clause in the death penalty statute to excise the unconstitutional language
in the death penalty statute. The court remanded the case to the district
court to set a new sentencing hearing before a newly-impaneled jury
unless Montour waives his right to jury sentencing. To be valid, Montour's
waiver of his Sixth Amendment right must be knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent, and not linked to his guilty plea. Justice Martinez concurred
in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the majority's conclusion
that Colorado’s death penalty statute unnecessarily and unconstitutionally
burdens a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by linking a defendant’s
guilty plea to an automatic waiver of The supreme court holds that evidence of virginity is inadmissible to prove the source of a current vaginal injury, because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect under Colorado Rule of Evidence 403. Because evidence of virginity spans such a lengthy period of time it includes remote, non-probative evidence of lack of sexual activity, and thus is too broad and over-inclusive to be admissible in light of its prejudicial effect. C.R.E. 403 bars the admission of this evidence. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of the victim's virginity. But the court held the error to be harmless, and thus affirmed the court of appeals' judgment on different grounds. Fletcher v. People The supreme court reversed the court of appeals’ holding that petitioner could not state an ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim because there is no right to effective assistance of postconviction counsel. The supreme court concluded that there is a limited statutory right to postconviction counsel in Colorado and that, where the right exists, postconviction counsel must meet the two-prong test of effectiveness in Strickland v. Washington. Justice Coats dissented, concluding "Unlike the majority, I believe section 21-1-104(1)(b) C.R.S. (2006), which falls within a section entitled, 'Duties of public defender,'authorizes the public defender to represent indigent defendants under specified circumstances but creates no right of representation that does not already exist." Silva v. People The court granted cert. in these cases: Leyva v. People, No. 07SC60, on this issue: Whether a motion for postconviction relief is timely filed if it is filed within three years of the date that an illegal sentence is corrected by the district court. Hernandez v. People, No. 07SC133, on this question: Whether section 16-11.7-105(1), C.R.S. (2006) mandates sex offender treatment as a condition of probation in all cases or whether a sentencing court has discretion to order treatment “to the extent appropriate to such offender.” April 20, 2007 The supreme court's oral argument calendar for May is here. The court will hear arguments on May 1-3. The supreme court will issue four decisions Monday: 06SA118 City of Fort Morgan v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission 02SA365 People v. Montour, Jr. 05SC646 Fletcher v. People 05SC519 Silva v. People The court of appeals' announcements for yesterday are here. The court issued five published decisions, summarized below. Where prosecutor
disclosed original surveillance tape to defense counsel before trial,
in Colorado Constitution,
art. II, § 14 and C.R.S. § 38-1-102(3) do not authorize condemnation
of an easement for a private way of necessity for the purpose sought
by petitioners – to construct and Where defendant's sentence was the product of the operation of multiple statutes and was within the special penalty range defined by the legislature, it did not violate the rules stated in Apprendi and Blakely. But the court agreed with defendant that he sufficiently stated a claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in not timely seeking a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Crim. P. 35(b), so it remanded for a hearing on that claim. People v. Trujillo Trial court
properly dismissed claims against all but two defendants. As to those
two defendants, there was sufficient contacts to establish personal
jurisdiction. The court of appeals also concluded, though, that Plaintiff
had standing only to assert its fraud claim against those two defendants.
The remaining claims were derivative claims that could only be brought
by the bankruptcy trustee. First
Horizon Merchant Services, Inc. v. Wellspring Capital Management, LLC In a case under
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. §
227, the trial court held that plaintiff did not have a private right
of action for defendant's failure to include April 18, 2007 I haven't done an update on original proceedings in the supreme court for some time, so one appears below the list of tomorrow's court of appeals decisions. I will summarize the court of appeals' published decisions on Monday, as I will be tied up the rest of the week. The court of appeals will release the following decisions tomorrow, including 5 published decisions Published Opinions No.: 04CA2404 People v. Jerry Joseph Armijo Unpublished Opinions No.: 04CA1232 People v. Michael I. Martinez The supreme court has recently issued rules to show cause in the following cases, including one involving Terry Lynn Barton, who started the Hayman fire: No. 07SA102 El Paso County District Court Case No. 06CV3800 (Judge David S. Prince) In Re: Plaintiff: WILLIAM ETCHIESON, v. Defendants: CENTRAL PURCHASING INC. d/b/a HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS, USA INC. and PRECISION MASTECH ENTERPRISES CO. of Hong Kong, China. Plaintiff Etchieson alleged he was injured by a defective electrical meter sold by Central Purchasing, Inc. and manufactured by Precision MasTech Enterprise Co. of Hong Kong, China. Plaintiff Etchieson and defendant Central Purchasing seek relief from the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant Precision for lack of personal jurisdiction. On April 3, 2007, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Precision is directed to answer on or before May 3, 2007, and petitioners, Etchieson and Central Purchasing, have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
In re: The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of: A.K., a Juvenile, and Concerning: M.G. and M.G. Synopsis: Petitioner Mesa County Attorney’s Office, on behalf of the Mesa County Department of Human Services (MCDHS) seeks relief from an Order entered by the El Paso County Juvenile Court directing the MCDHS to immediately assume jurisdiction over juvenile defendant, A.K., who has been ordered to be placed at the Mental Health Institute in Pueblo until July 2007 pursuant to an incompetence finding made by the Weld County Juvenile Court. On March 15, 2007, the Court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, the Honorable Regina M. Walter and Beverly Lopez, Guardian Ad Litem, are directed to file a written answer on or before April 16, 2007. Petitioner Mesa County Attorney’s Office has thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. Other parties or organizations have been granted permission to file a brief in support of the positions held by the named petitioner and the named respondents.
District Court, City & County of Denver Case No. 06CV555 (Judge Michael A. Martinez) In re: Plaintiff: STEPHEN COMPTON, v. Defendant: SAFEWAY, INC. Synopsis: Plaintiff Stephen Compton seeks relief from the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel to obtain employees' statements recorded by defendant's risk management department arguing that the recorded statements are not protected from discovery by either the attorney work product privilege or the attorney client privilege. On February 22, 2007, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Defendant Safeway, Inc. is direct to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2007. Plaintiff Stephen Compton has thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
No. 07SA65 Eagle County District Court Case No. 05CV345 (Judge Frederick Gannett) In re: Plaintiffs: AARON STAMP and KELLY STAMP v. Defendants: THE VAIL CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation d/b/a VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., and MARK CHARD; Third Party Defendant: TERRY DELLIQUADRI. Synopsis: Plaintiffs Aaron Stamp and Kelly Stamp seek relief from the trial court ruling denying plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint to add a claim for exemplary damages on grounds that the Colorado Wrongful Death Act is implicated. On March 1, 2007, the Court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents The Vail Corporation and Mark Chard, along with third party defendant Terry Delliquadri are directed to file a written answer on or before April 1, 2007. Petitioners Aaron Stamp and Kelly Stamp have thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
No. 07SA58 Teller County District Court Case No. 02CR237 In re: Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO v. Defendant: TERRY LYNN BARTON. Synopsis: Defendant Terry Lynn Barton seeks relief from two related trial court rulings allowing the prosecution to withdraw from an accepted plea agreement, on grounds that the defendant's appeal effected a change in the law subsequent to the plea agreement and breached the plea agreement in contravention of an appeal waiver provision. On February 22, 2007, the Court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before April 9, 2007. Petitioner Terry Lynn Barton has forty-five days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
No. 07SA24 Pueblo County District Court Case No. 01CV388 In re: Plaintiff: GORDON PULSIFER v. Defendants: PUEBLO PREOFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS, INC., a Colorado Corporation, D&W CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and WOODBUSTERS CONSTRUCTION. Synopsis: Defendant Pueblo Professional Contractors seeks relief from the trial court’s order denying its motion for a determination that § 8-41-401(3), C.R.S. (2006) limits Plaintiff Pulsifer’s damages to $15,000 in this workers’ compensation case. On January 30, 2007, the Court issued a rule to show cause why the
requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Gordon Pulsifer is
directed to file a written answer on or before March 1, 2007. Petitioner
Pueblo Professional Contractors, Inc., has thirty days from receipt
of the answer within which to reply.
06SA382 Prowers County Case Nos. 05T275, 05T390, & 05T767 (Judge Larry Stutler) In re: Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO v. Defendant: VICKI SARA ARIATTI. Synopsis: Petitioner Vicki Ariatti seeks relief from the trial court's order that she pay certain fines, even though the court has determined that she is indigent, from an "estate" that is based on her husband's social security payments. On January 4, 2007, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted. Respondent, the Honorable Larry Stutler is directed to provide a written answer on or before February 20, 2007. Petitioner Ariatti has 45 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. April 16, 2007 The court of appeals' oral argument calendar for June is here. Here are the supreme court's announcements for today. The supreme court issued one decision today, summarized below. The court granted cert. in one case, No. 06SC681, Trattler v. Citron, on this question:
Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order that the nondisclosure was not harmless and in finding that C.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) mandates the preclusion of expert evidence when an expert fails to disclose recent testimony. Supreme court
concludes trial court abused its discretion when it committed to ordering
the suppression of DNA results for testing that had not yet been conducted
if the district attorney refused to pay the expense of a defense expert
and the CBI refused to permit videotaping. The CBI was destructive (or
consumptive) testing, meaning that the test itself would complete consume
the evidence and the defense would not be able to conduct its own testing.
The defense sought to videotape the testing, but CBI prohibits that,
leaving the defense to have to hire its own expert to view the testing,
a considerable expense. The trial court therefore ordered the prosecution
to pay any defense expert costs in excess of $1,000. Applying C.R.S.
§ 16-3-309, the court noted that the touchstone of the statute
is the reasonableness of the state’s conduct. Thus, when the sample
is destroyed the trial court may be asked to suppress the test results
as a sanction for unreasonable state conduct. Under these circumstances,
the statute requires that the court consider whether the state performed
the testing in good faith and gave the defendant an opportunity to have
an expert present during destructive testing. The court said that an
order suppressing results prior to testing could only be based on possible
future conduct, and therefore when a trial court commits to ordering
test results suppressed before evidence has been destroyed in testing
the court acts outside its discretion because it is in no position to
assess the reasonableness of the prosecution’s future actions.
Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in this case. The supreme
court emphasized that instead of deciding whether evidence will be suppressed,
the trial court’s role prior to testing is to oversee the preservation
of evidence. The court further noted that trial courts have broad supervisory
authority to oversee the preservation of evidence. The supreme court
expressly adopted American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section
Standard 3.4(e), authorizing the trial court to require procedures that
permit an independent evaluation of the analysis, including but not
limited to videotaping the preparation and testing. The court emphasized
that the trial court’s authority was over the evidence, and did
not extend to Justice Coats, joined by Justices Eid and Rice, concurred in the judgment only, with rather choice words: "While I would also vacate the trial court’s order, I neither join the majority opinion nor pretend to comprehend it." Justice Coats took the trial court to task for accepting defense's counsel's portrayal of the financial difficulties in acquiring an expert: "The record does not even remotely suggest that funds already appropriated to the public defender would have been insufficient to pay for a competent expert to observe in this case, much less that the legislature would have denied a supplemental appropriation, had one been necessary. In fact, however, the trial court did not find the defendant unable to pay for an expert or in any way condition its ultimatum on the availability of public funding for that purpose. Instead, the court simply disapproved of the CBI’s refusal to permit videotaping as an alternative to contemporaneous observation by a defense expert, and it imposed a financial disincentive on the prosecution as a means of bludgeoning the CBI into changing its internal operating procedures. In doing so, I believe the trial court abused its discretion in a host of ways and for a host of reasons, not least because the defendant had no right, constitutional or otherwise, to demand that the state submit its internal operations to videotaping in lieu of permitting a defense expert to be present and observe consumptive testing in person." Justice Coats also took the majority to task for adopting the ABA Criminal Justice Standards: "by adopting wholesale a provision of the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards on DNA Evidence, the majority would authorize trial courts to order the videotaping of DNA testing and prohibit testing that does not comply with the procedures they have ordered. See maj. op. at 9-10. While I would object to this kind of legislating from the bench in any event, I find it particularly troubling when done, as the majority does here, virtually without debate or justification; in an area already regulated by the legislature; and in the very act of disapproving the trial court’s order for other reasons. In fact, I am more than a little confused by the majority’s adoption of a standard authorizing orders for the videotaping of DNA tests and its simultaneous disapproval of such an order before testing has actually occurred because the sample has not yet been consumed." In re People v. Wartena April 12, 2007 Today's court of appeals announcements are here. The court issued unpublished decisions only. April 11, 2007 The court of appeals will announce the following unpublished decisions tomorrow: No.: 04CA0117 Onebeacon Insurance Company v. Travelers Property Casualty
Insurance Company, et al. April 9, 2007 Today's supreme court announcements are here. The court issued two decisions, summarized below. The court also granted cert. in four cases, and the questions presented in those appear below the summaries. In an interlocutory
appeal, the prosecution sought to reverse the trial court’s suppression
of statements made during the interrogation of the defendant , as well
as physical evidence collected during the interrogation. The trial court
ruled that the defendant unambiguously and unequivocally requested an
attorney early in the interrogation, which the police detective failed
to scrupulously honor. The trial court ruled that all statements made
after defendant requested an attorney were inadmissible at trial. The
trial court also found that a swab of defendant’s mouth collected Cities are not immune from liability under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act for deaths of children which occurred in separate 1997 accidents at municipal sanitation facilities. The supreme court held that an amendment to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, enacted by House Bill 03-1288, operates only prospectively and thus did not apply in determining the rights and liabilities at issue in cases, such as these, that arose before July 1, 2003, the effective date of the act. Therefore, the court affirmed the court of appeals’ rulings in Powell v. City of Colorado Springs, 131 P.3d 1129 (Colo. App. 2005), and Henry-Hobbs v. City of Longmont, No. 03CA2187, (Colo. App. Sept. 8, 2005). Justice Eid, joined by Justice Coats, specially concurred in part, taking issue with the majority's use of legislative history in its analysis. City of Colo. Springs v. Powell; City of Longmont v. Henry-Hobbs and City of Colo Springs v. Speight Family Partnership (There are two separate opinions, but the main analysis is in the first listed above.) The court granted cert. in these cases: Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Division, No. 06SC385, on these issues: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that petitioner’s claims against the state lottery are barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the state lottery was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under section 13-17-201, C.R.S. (2006). Colorado Department of Transportation v. Brown Group Retail, Inc., No. 06SC667, on this question: Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act does not bar respondent’s unjust enrichment, contribution, and declaratory judgment claims despite the actual State conduct underlying these claims. Crider v. People, No. 06SC799, on this issue: Whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, which is objected to, must be reviewed under the constitutional harmless error standard and whether, applying this standard to petitioner’s case, petitioner’s due process rights to a fair trial were denied by the prosecutor’s repeated characterizations of petitioner as a liar who lied during his testimony. In Mintz v. People, No. 06SC410, cert. was granted, and the judgment vacated and remanded in light of Vensor v. People, 151 P.3d 1274 (Colo. 2007). April 6, 2007 The supreme court will issue the following four decisions on Monday: 06SA366 People v. Bradshaw (no orals) 05SC743 City of Colo. Springs v. Powell 05SC744 City of Colo Springs v. Speight Family Partnership 05SC746 City of Longmont v. Henry-Hobbs The court of appeals will arguments on May 1 at Monte Vista High School in Monte Vista as part of Law Day. The court will hear two cases, described in the press release as follows: No. 06CA808, James F. Blum v. The People of the State of Colorado: Mr. Blum seeks review of the district court order affirming his attempted fraud conviction and the failure of the district court to address his additional claims for relief.
No. 05CA94, The People of the State of Colorado v. Ifty Christopher Benavidez: Mr. Benavidez was convicted of first degree murder after deliberation on December 12, 2003 by jury trial, and sentenced to life in prison. The panel will be Judges Marquez, Roy and Furman. April 5, 2007 The court of appeals' annoucements for today are here. The court issued 12 published decisions, summarized below. Because the
property owner continues to be deprived of his or her property so long
as the thief retains that property, the crime of theft by deception
continues until the deception ends. Therefore, an individual who obtains
property through deception continues to commit the crime of theft by Defendant asserted that two "Notices" he sent to judicial officers did not constitute "true threats" as required for a conviction under C.R.S. § 18-8-306 (attempting to influence a public official by, inter alia, threats of violence) and that under argues that his convictions must be reversed because the statements contained in the two “Notices” were protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals rejected defendant's position, concluding that while true threats are indeed required, the People did prove that the statements constituted true threats. Judge Vogt specially concurred, concluding, contrary to the majority, that Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), requires a showing that the defendant subjectively intended to make a threat in order for his conviction to pass constitutional muster: "Under Black as I read it, speech may not be constitutionally punished simply because a reasonable person would understand it as a threat, if the speaker did not mean for the speech to be so understood." Judge Vogt concluded that there was sufficient evidence that defendant intended to threaten the judges. People v. Stanley Evidence that
murder victim wanted to end his relationship with defendant was relevant
to show that defendant had a motive for killing the victim and to rebut
her testimony that she had not Although two
sources of marijuana were discovered in close proximity and within a
short time, they were different parcels of drugs that the jury could
infer were to be used for different No authority exists for the proposition that a trial court must remind a defendant of his or her remaining peremptory challenges. Therefore, failure of trial court to sua sponte remind defense counsel it had one remaining peremptory challenge was not error. The court of appeals also concluded that defense counsel’s failure to exercise a peremptory challenge was not so extraordinary that it relieved defendant of the obligation to satisfy the Strickland prejudice prong in order to demonstrate ineffective of counsel. People v. Vieyra In a continuing
trespass case, a plaintiff may recover all past damages suffered during
the applicable limitations period as a result of the defendant’s
trespass, including those incurred after the commencement of the action
but before the trial. The court concluded that its holding "best While loss of
future royalties, like future lost profits, is by its nature, difficult
to show, that difficulty alone does not bar a court from awarding future
damages. Loss of royalties as a result of a breach of contract must
be established with reasonable certainty. The plaintiff's expert’s
opinion of the present value of future royalties was not to a mathematical
certainty, but such certainty is not C.R.S. §
15-10-401 requires notice be given to any interested person if a hearing
on any petition is
Court upholds summary judgment concluding that insurance company had neither the duty to defend nor indemnify insured. The policy contained an exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the ownership, use, or entrustment to others of any automobile rented or loaned to the insured. It contained an endorsement, however, for “non-owned autos," but that term did not include a an auto leased under a "long-term lease" and insured under another policy. Miller v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company In property
division dispute arising out of dissolution of marriage, husband argued
that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), applicable to military
disability benefits, and 42 U.S.C. § 407, applicable to Social
Security disability benefits, required the district court’s property
division to be reversed. Both provisions state, using similar language,
that disability benefit payments are not subject to attachment, levy,
seizure, or other legal processes. But the court of appeals concluded
the husband read the provisions too broadly. They preclude treating
the disability payments Mandatory arbitration
provision of the Realtors’ Code states: "In the event of contractual
disputes or specific noncontractual disputes as defined in Standard
of Practice 17-4 between Realtors April 4, 2007 The court of appeals will release the following decisions tomorrow, including 12 published opinions: Published Opinions No.: 03CA1787 People v. George Cecil Roberts Unpublished Opinions No.: 04CA0736 People v. James John McVickers April 3, 2007 I'm back. I was on vacation in Florida and had some other things that kept me from blogging of late. But this post contains all the necessary updates. First, here are yesterday's supreme court announcements. The court issued no new decisions, and did not grant cert. in any cases. Here are the court of appeals announcements from March 29. The court issued only unpublished decisions. Finally, the supreme court announcements for March 26 are here. The court issued three decisions, summarized below. The court granted cert. in four cases, and the questions presented in those cases follow the summaries. In an important
case on expert evidence, the supreme court determined that the "reasonable
medical probability/certainty" standard is an outdated standard
that has been replaced by the Colorado Rules of Evidence. The court
of appeals' decision under review had held that the expert testimony
of a certified pediatric nurse practitioner in a sexual assault case
should not have been admitted by the trial court. The nurse described
her findings as "suspicious" and testified that her conclusions
were not based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The supreme
court reversed, rejecting the "reasonable medical probability/certainty"
standard. The court noted that the Colorado cases that used this standard
were based in prior cases addressing sufficiency of evidence rather
than admissibility of expert testimony. Applying the Colorado Rules
of Evidence instead of the "reasonable medical probability/certainty"
standard, the court held the nurse's testimony was sufficiently reliable
and useful to the jury to be admissible. In addition, the court noted
that the testimony was not speculative, even though it was not definitive
and the nurse used the descriptive term "suspicious" to label
the category for her finding. Inadmissible speculative testimony is
opinion testimony that has no analytically sound basis. The nurse's The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling that respondent was immune from suit under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act ("CGIA"). Examining the plain language of §§ 24-10-118(2)(a) and 24-10-106(1), the court held that because respondent was driving his personally-owned vehicle at the time of the motor vehicle accident, he was immune from suit. Under the CGIA, a public employee's immunity for injuries arising out of the course of employment is waived if the injuries resulted from the employee's operation of a vehicle owned or leased by a public entity. Because respondent was driving his own vehicle, immunity was not waived. Ceja v. Lemire Plaintiffs sued
two defendants in one action for the death of a decedent based on separate
torts The court granted cert. in these cases: Granite State Ins. Co. v. Ken Caryl Ranch Master Association, No. 06SC627, on these issues: Whether Colorado Revised
Statute section 10-4-110.5(1) (Notice Statute) imposed upon petitioner
a full-term renewal of a prior commercial property insurance policy
that covered the property of respondent when petitioner provided a notice
of a change in coverage that was late, but was given prior to the policy's
expiration. People v. MacLeod,
No. 06SC705, on this question: Barrera v. Ruff,
No. 06SC845, on these issues: Whether the court of appeals erred by affirming summary judgment for civil fraud and conspiracy based on its conclusion that there was no disputed issue of material fact on the element of making a false representation with the intention that the representation be acted upon. Whether the court of appeals erred by finding petitioner's statement was the proximate cause of respondents' damages, when a statement by one of the respondents was the basis for the retaliation claim. Whether the court of appeals properly applied the wrongdoer exception to the American Rule when it awarded attorney fees as damages to respondents. Whether the court of appeals erred in awarding appellate attorney fees in this case. Vasquez v. People,
No. 07SC50, on these questions:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||