SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 EN BANC
Bailiff: Kate Field/Sara Rundell
09SA269 (1 HOUR)
Concerning the Application for Water Rights of The City and County of Broomfield in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder and Weld CountiesApplicant-Appellee:
The City and County of Broomfield,
v.
Opposer-Appellant:
The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, a Colorado corporation,
Opposers-Appellees:
The Brighton Ditch Company, City of Aurora, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, City of Englewood, City of Thornton, City of Westminster, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, Public Service Company, United Water & Sanitation District, Lupton Bottom Ditch Company, Lupton Meadows Ditch, New Coal Ridge Ditch Company, New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir, Platte Valley Irrigation Company, Pulte Home Corporation-Preble Creek Division, South Adams Water & Sanitation District, City of Boulder, and Office of the Attorney General,
Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e):
James Hall, Division 1 Engineer. / )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Applicant-Appellee:
Harvey W. Curtis
David L. Kueter
Sheela S. Stack
Harvey W. Curtis & Associates
For the Opposer-Appellant:
John P. Akolt III
John P. Akolt II
Law Office of Akolt and Akolt, LLC
For the Opposer-Appellee Office of the Attorney General:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Chad M. Wallace
Assistant Attorney General
Autumn L. Bernhardt
Assistant Attorney General
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 05CW290
Docketed: September 16, 2009
At Issue: March 18, 2010 Cont’d to Page 2
Cont’d from Page 1
ISSUE(S):
Whether costs can be assessed under C.R.C.P. 54(d) against a mutual ditch company as a representative of its shareholders, where at least a percentage of the shareholders, themselves, are exempt from assessment of costs.
Whether the assessment of costs in a Water Court proceeding under the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (C.R.S. 37-92-101) [hereafter “1969 Act”] violates Article II, Sections 10 and 24 of the Colorado Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Whether the assessment of costs against a mutual ditch company in a Water Court proceeding under the 1969 Act where costs against the State of Colorado, its officers or agencies are not assessable under C.R.C.P. 54(d) violates the due process and equal protection provisions, Amendment V and Amendment XIV, of the Constitution of the United States, and Article II, Sections 24 and 25 and Article II, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
______
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
09SC128 (½ HOUR)
Petitioner:Angela Washington,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado. / ))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Todd Johnson
Deputy Public Defender
For the Respondent:
Daniel H. May
District Attorney
Kris Morgan
Deputy District Attorney
Deborah F. Pearson
Deputy District Attorney
Certiorari to the District Court, El Paso County, 08CV275
Docketed: February 12, 2009
At Issue: February 5, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether a defendant can assert an affirmative defense of self-defense against the specific-intent crime of harassment and, if so, whether the defendant must admit to the specific intent in order to assert self-defense as an affirmative defense.
______
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 EN BANC
Bailiff: Britta Stunkard/Elias Quinn
09SC195 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:Nicole Nunn,
v.
Respondent:
Mid-Century Insurance Company, a California corporation. / )))))))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Murray Ogborn
Thomas Neville
Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, LLC
and
Bradley A. Levin
Michael J. Rosenberg
For the Respondent:
John P. Craver
John M. Lebsack
Lyndsay K. Arundel
White and Steele, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:
Steven Taffet
Taffet Law, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association:
Jack D. Robinson
Spies, Powers & Robinson, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae American Insurance Association:
Alan Epstein
Hall & Evans L.L.C.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA954
Docketed: March 9, 2009
At Issue: April 12, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that a Bashor agreement containing a covenant not to execute on the insured’s personal assets, given in exchange for the insured’s assignment of claims against its liability insurer, precludes the insured’s assignee from recovering damages against the insurer on the assigned claims, irrespective of the insurer’s bad faith conduct.
______
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:30 p.m.
EN BANC
09SC421 (½ HOUR)
Petitioners:Virginia D. Munoz and Joel Munoz,
v.
Respondents:
Linda L. Measner and Devon E. Measner. / ))))))))) / For the Petitioners:
Jonathan S. Willett
For the Respondents:
Jennifer Lynn Peters
Otis, Coan & Peters, LLC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA425
Docketed: May 18, 2009
At Issue: March 29, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals properly reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees pursuant to section 1317102(4), C.R.S. (2008), because the trial court did not use the factors laid out in section 1317103(1), C.R.S. (2008), to assess whether attorney fees were warranted.
______
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:00 p.m.
EN BANC
09SC916 (½ HOUR)
Petitioner:Jefferson County Board of Equalization,
v.
Respondents:
Mark W. Gerganoff, Robin E. McIntosh, and Board of Assessment Appeals. / )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Ellen G. Wakeman
Jefferson County Attorney
Eric T. Butler
Assistant County Attorney
For the Respondent Mark W. Gerganoff:
Mark W. Gerganoff
For Amicus Curiae City and County of Denver:
David R. Fine
City Attorney
David V. Cooke
Assistant City Attorney
For Amicus Curiae Taxpayers Jaki Barry, Jim Butler, Dan Edwards, OPLLC, Jamie and Kim McIntosh, Jeff Quinlan, STP, and SH:
Robert T. Hoban
Hoban & Feola, LLC
For Amicus Curiae Arapahoe County Board of Equalization:
Kathryn Schroeder
County Attorney
George Rosenberg
Assistant County Attorney
Breena N. Meng
Assistant County Attorney
For Amicus Curiae Boulder County Board of Equalization:
H. Lawrence Hoyt
County Attorney
Michael A. Koertje
Assistant County Attorney
Cont’d to Page 7
Cont’d from Page 6
For Amicus Curiae The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Douglas, State of Colorado:
Lance J. Ingalls
County Attorney
Kelly Dunnaway
Deputy Douglas County Attorney
Robert D. Clark
Senior Assistant County Attorney
Michelle B. Whisler
Senior Assistant County Attorney
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2348
Docketed: October 30, 2009
At Issue: April 6, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether section 39-8-109, C.R.S. (2008), requires the Board of Assessment Appeals to award costs to taxpayers whose appeal is sustained in part.
______
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 EN BANC
Bailiff: David Scherr/Margrit Parker
09SA118 (1 HOUR)
Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District in Routt County, ColoradoApplicant-Appellant:
Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District,
v.
Opposers-Appellees:
Dequine Family L.L.C.; Flying Diamond Resources, Ltd.; Kim Singleton; James A. Larson; Colorado Water Conservation Board; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer; and Erin Light, Division Engineer Water Division 6. / ))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Applicant-Appellant:
Robert G. Weiss
Weiss & Van Scoyk, LLP
and
David C. Hallford
Scott A. Grosscup
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
For the Opposers-Appellees Dequine Family L.L.C., Flying Diamond Resources, Ltd., Kim Singleton, and James A. Larson:
Charles B. White
Petros & White
For the Opposer-Appellees Dick Wolfe, State Engineer; and Erin Light, Division Engineer Water Division 6:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
John J. Cyran
First Assistant Attorney General
Scott Steinbrecher
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 6, 03CW53
Docketed: May 15, 2009
At Issue: January 12, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether an appropriation to use water by both direct flow and storage may be confirmed under one water right.
Whether the court erred in considering that the District’s conditional water right would violate the “one-fill” rule.
Whether the court should consider the benefit of this water right on the use of other District water rights when considering if the District has formed a non-speculative intent for the appropriation and can and will develop the conditional right.
Whether the court erred in concluding that there was no need for an additional direct flow water right from a new source for purposes of hydropower production.
Whether the court erred in concluding that the District had not met its burden of establishing a non-speculative intent for the water right claimed in the application.
______
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
09SC184 (½ HOUR)
Petitioner:The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Respondent:
Ivan Zhuk. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Carol Chambers
District Attorney
David C. Jones
Senior Deputy District Attorney
For the Respondent:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Rita M. Montoya
Deputy State Public Defender
Certiorari to the District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV2724
Docketed: March 5, 2009
At Issue: February 11, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether the district court erred in dismissing as untimely the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal from a county court ruling pursuant to Crim. P. 37.1.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
09SC189 (1 HOUR)
Petitioners:Richard W. Bly; Patsy A. Bly; and Bank of the West f/n/a Community First National Bank f/n/a The Bank, N.A.;
v.
Respondent:
Tamara L. Story. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioners:
Robert R. Duncan
Duncan, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C.
For the Respondent:
Geoffrey P. Anderson
Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA2076
Docketed: March 6, 2009
At Issue: February 12, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Where the Petition in Condemnation did not identify the scope of the condemnor’s uses and purposes and lacked a legal description of the easement being acquired, whether the court of appeals erred in ruling the Petition was adequate.
Where the court of appeals acknowledged “no expert here could find comparable sales of driveway easements,” and where it was undisputed that the Income Method cannot be applied, whether the panel erred in precluding the jury from hearing valuation evidence based on the only remaining appraisal method, the Cost Method, and the cost of constructing the driveway.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 EN BANC
Bailiff: Christie Henke/Alison Flint
09SC70 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:Phillip Effland,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Katherine Brien
Special Deputy Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Rebecca A. Adams
Assistant Attorney General
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA1948
Docketed: January 26, 2009
At Issue: March 29, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erroneously confirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suppress his statements because the interrogating officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights or obtain a valid waiver of those rights.
Whether the court of appeals erroneously confirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suppress his statements after petitioner proactively invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to silence and to counsel and the investigating officers told petitioner he was not entitled to legal representation because he was not in custody.
Whether the court of appeals erred in finding the petitioner’s statements voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
Whether the court of appeals erred in not finding prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecuting attorney advised the interrogating officers that petitioner was not entitled to counsel, which the officers then told petitioner when he asserted his right to remain silent and to counsel.
______
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 2:30 p.m.
EN BANC
09SC680 (½ HOUR)
Petitioner:Ezamika Brown,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Douglas K.Wilson
Colorado State Public Defender
Rebecca R. Freyre
Deputy State Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Christopher Y. Bosch
Assistant Attorney General
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA209
Docketed: August 10, 2009
At Issue: March 19, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence in the record to support giving the lesser-included offense instruction requested by the defense.
Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence in the record to support giving the intoxication instruction requested by the defense.
______
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 3:00 p.m.
EN BANC
09SC451 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:Rocky Mountain Festivals, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Renaissance Festivals, Inc.,
v.
Respondents:
Parsons Corporation and James M. Miller. / )))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
T.R. Rice
Astrella & Rice PC
For the Respondents:
R. Kirk Mueller
Damian J. Arguello
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA349
Docketed: May 28, 2009
At Issue: March 16, 2010
ISSUE(S):
Whether claims based upon the “wrong-of-another” under Elijah v. Fender, 674 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1984) can be pursued only in instances where there is a complete absence of fault on the part of a plaintiff with respect to each and every claim asserted in the prior case.
Whether petitioner was obligated, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, to prove up its damages even though the absence of damages was not one of the issues raised as the basis for the motion.
______
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 EN BANC
Bailiff: Andy Lanoha/Ben Figa
09SC456 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, an agency of the State of Colorado, as successor in interest to the Colorado Department of Highways,
v.
Respondents:
Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Antero Resources II Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business in Colorado as Antero Resources Corporation; and Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, a quasi-municipal corporation. / )))))))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Daniel Domenico
Solicitor General
Larry D. Tannenbaum
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Eric T. Meyer
Assistant Attorney General
For Respondent Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC:
Edward Mulhall, Jr.
Scott Grosscup
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
For Respondent Antero Resources II Corporation:
David R. Little
Bjork Lindley Little PC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA399