SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 8:45 a.m.

Oral Argument, Monday, May 2 , 2005 EN BANC

Bailiff: Paige Mackey

Centennial High School

Pueblo, CO

04SC167 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |

| |))))|David S. Kaplan |

|YVONNE MEDINA, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |

| |) |Tracy C. Renner |

|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | | |

| | |For the Respondent: |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | |John Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Roger G. Billotte |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Appellate Division |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA0202

Docketed: April 6, 2004

At Issue: March 3, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether allowing questions from the jury during trial deprives a defendant of her federal and state constitutional right to a fair trial and to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument, Monday, May 2, 2005 10:15 a.m.

EN BANC

04SC362 ( 1 HOUR)

|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |

| |))))|Bradford E. Dempsey |

|MATTHEW CHARLES DEMPSEY, |))))|Holme Roberts & Owen LLP |

| |)) |and |

|v. | |Steven J. Perfrement |

| | |Musgrave & Theis, P.C. |

|Respondent: | |and |

| | |Nancy L. Dempsey |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | | |

| | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Mary T. Keenan |

| | |District Attorney |

| | |Adrian A. Van Nice |

| | |Deputy District Attorney |

Certiorari to the District Court, Boulder County, 03CV1611

Docketed: July 14, 2004

At Issue: February 22, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether, in a matter of first impression, the district court’s broad application of Colorado’s Disrupting Lawful Assembly statute (C.R.S. § 18-9-108) violated Petitioner’s fundamental rights, guaranteed by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions, to free political expression at an election-related event.

Whether, in a matter of first impression, the district court’s expansive application of Colorado’s Obstructing a Peace Officer statute (C.R.S. § 18-8-104) violated Petitioner’s fundamental rights to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions by criminally punishing Petitioner for exercising legal rights while not under arrest.

______________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.

Oral Argument, Wednesday, May 4, 2005 EN BANC

Bailiff: David Mendozza

03SC842 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners Brady & Son Bonded Roof Co.; Formex Concrete |

| |))))|Forming, Inc.; Frank’s Finish Grading, Inc.; Hesterly Holland |

|A.C. EXCAVATING; BRADY & SON BONDED ROOF CO.; DIRT-N-ALL EXCAVATING;|))))|Construction, LLC; and Watren Concrete Forming, Inc.: |

|NDF COMPANY; FORMEX CONCRETE FORMING, INC.; FRANK’S FINISH GRADING, |))))|A. Peter Gregory |

|INC.; HESTERLY HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION, LLC; K.J. WOODWORKS, LTD.; ROCKY|))))|James G. Gaspich |

|MOUNTAIN FLATWORK, INC.; STEVENS EXCAVATING, INC.; WATREN CONCRETE |))))|Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C. |

|FORMING, INC.; and YEAGER CONCRETE CORPORATION, |))))| |

| |))))|For the Petitioner Dirt-N-All Excavating: |

|v. |))))|H. Keith Jarvis |

| |))))|David B. Bush |

|Respondent: |))))|Markusson, Green & Jarvis, P.C. |

| |))))| |

|YACHT CLUB II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. |))))|For the Petitioner A.C. Excavating: |

| |))))|Ryan A. Williams |

| |))))|Messner & Reeves, LLC |

| |))))| |

| |))))|For the Petitioner NDF CO: |

| |))))|David K. TeSelle |

| |))))|Burg, Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. |

| |))))| |

| |))))|For the Petitioner K.J. Woodworks & Rocky Mountain Flatwork Inc.:|

| |))) |Janet S. Bouffard |

| | |Ray Lego & Associates |

| | | |

| | |For the Petitioner Stevens Excavating, Inc.: |

| | |Daniel M. Fowler |

| | |Katherine T. Eubank |

| | |Steve Fox |

| | |Fowler Schimberg & Flanagan, P.C. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |cont’d on next page |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |03SC842 |

| | |cont’d from previous page |

| | | |

| | |For the Petitioner Yeager Concrete Corp.: |

| | |Bruce A. Menk |

| | |Hall & Evans, LLC |

| | | |

| | |For the Respondent Yacht Club II HOA, Inc.: |

| | |T. Cass McKenzie |

| | |Michael A. Hearn |

| | |Andrew M. Karr |

| | |McKenzie Rhody & Hearn, LLC |

| | |and |

| | |Joseph W. Halpern |

| | |Teresa D. Locke |

| | |Holland & Hart, LLP |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings (HADD): |

| | |Ronald M. Sandgrund |

| | |Vanatta, Sullan, Sandgrund & Sullan, P.C. |

| | |and |

| | |Jesse Howard Witt |

| | |Benson & Associates, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyer’s Association: |

| | |Jeffrey Clay Ruebel |

| | |Campbell, Latiolais & Ruebel, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Civil Justice League: |

| | |K. Preston Oade |

| | |Holme Roberst & Owen, LLP |

| | |and |

| | |Lee Mickus |

| | |Snell & Wilmer, LLP |

| | |and |

| | |Scott Eric Gensler |

| | |Hale Friesen, LLP |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA0645

Docketed: February 4, 2004

At Issue: March 9, 2005

cont’d on next page

03SC842

cont’d from previous page

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the homeowners association’s tort suit against the subcontractors alleging damages related to construction negligence was not barred by the economic loss rule as adopted in Town of Alma v. Azco Construction, Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000).

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument, Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

04SC334 ( ½ HOUR)

|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |

| |))))|David S. Kaplan |

|PHILLIP MOSES, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |

| |) |Shann Jeffery |

|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John Suthers |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | |Colorado Attorney General |

| | |Roger G. Billotte |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Appellate Division |

| | |Criminal Justice Section |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA0925

Docketed: June 9, 2004

At Issue: March 7, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether juror questioning in a criminal trial, under Colorado’s pilot program, violates defendants’ constitutional rights to fair trials by impartial juries.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument, Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

04SC436 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |

| |))))|John Suthers |

|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, |)) |Colorado Attorney General |

| | |Cheryl Hone |

|v. | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Appellate Division |

|Respondent: | |Criminal Justice Section |

| | | |

|PETER KARL WEINREICH. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Robert T. Fishman |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA0995

Docketed: July 12, 2004

At Issue: February 28, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether the three methods of committing child abuse defined in section 18-6-401(1)(a), 6 C.R.S. (2003), overlap sufficiently that a jury instruction may recite a different method than the charging document without impermissibly amending the document under Crim. P. 7(e).

Whether it was plain error, if error at all, to recite a different phrase of the statute defining child abuse, section 18-6-401(1)(a), 6 C.R.S. (2003), in the elemental jury instruction than in the information, even when that charge and the other charges gave defendant a fair opportunity to prepare his defense and protected him from double jeopardy.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.

Oral Argument, Wednesday, May 4, 2005 EN BANC

Bailiff: Malia Arrington

04SC206 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |

| |))))|James S. Bailey |

|SOOPER CREDIT UNION, a credit union, |))) |Erich L. Bethke |

| | |Canges, Iwashko, Bethke & Bailey, P.C. |

|v. | | |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Mathew Osofsky |

|SHOLAR GROUP ARCHITECTS, P.C., a/k/a SHOLAR GROUP, P.C. a Colorado | |Carrie L. Okizaki |

|professional corporation. | |L. Tyrone Holt |

| | |Holt & Stalder, LLC |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA2559

Docketed: April 9, 2004

At Issue: March 16, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether the arbitrator had the authority to correct his award to remedy an evident misdescription or “evident miscalculation of figures” where he acknowledged a miscalculation resulting in a “double recovery” to plaintiffs.

Whether the court of appeals erred in its interpretation of C.R.S. section 13-22-211 by adding a requirement that an ambiguity be evident in the face of the initial award.

Whether the arbitrator exceeded his power because he properly redetermined the merits when he corrected his initial award to eliminate his admitted miscalculation.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument, Wednesday, May 4, 2005 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

04SA285 (1 HOUR)

|IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS: |))))|For the Applicant-Appellant: |

| |))))|Timothy J. Flanagan |

| |))))|Fowler, Schimberg & Flanagan, P.C. |

|Applicant-Appellant: |))))| |

| |))))|For the Objectors-Appellees Irrigationist Association: |

|READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY IN ADAMS COUNTY, |))))|Mary Mead Hammond |

| |) |Amy N. Huff |

|v. | |Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, LLC |

| | | |

|Objectors-Appellees: | |For Objectors-Appellees Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company:|

| | |John P. Akolt |

|FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY; STATE AND DIVISION | | |

|ENGINEER; CITY OF THORNTON; THE IRRIGATIONIST’S ASSOCIATION; CENTRAL | |For Objectors-Appellees City of Thornton: |

|COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; THE GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT | |Dennis A. Hanson |

|SUBDISTRICT OF THE CENTRAL COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; and | |Assistant City Attorney |

|DENVER WATER DEPARTMENT. | | |

| | |For Objectors-Appellees Denver Water Department: |

| | |Michael L. Walker |

Appeal from District Court, Water Division One, 96CW197

Docketed: September 3, 2004

At Issue: March 23, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether direct flow priority of developed water decreed in 1918 “independent of the priorities” of the South Platte River may be reduced in volume when changed from irrigation to augmentation use.

Conversely, may other water right owners collaterally attack a valid seepage decree after 85 years of open and notorious usage?

______________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.

Oral Argument, Thursday, May 5, 2005 EN BANC

Bailiff: Jonathan Fero

05SA30 (1 HOUR)

|In re: |))))|For the Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: |

| |))))|Edward A. Gleason |

|Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: |))))|Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, LLP |

| |))))| |

|PROFESSIONAL BULL RIDERS, INC., a Colorado corporation, |))))| |

| | | |

|v. | | |

| | | |

|Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: | |For the Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant and |

| | |Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant : |

|AUTOZONE, INC., | |William K. Rounsborg |

| | |John M. Lebsack |

|--------------------------- | |White and Steele, P.C. |

| | | |

|Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: | | |

| | | |

|SPEEDBAR, INC. | | |

Certification of Question of Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,

03-1544 & 04-1029

Docketed: February 8, 2005

At Issue: March 14, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Under Col. Rev. Stat. § 38-10-112 (1)(a), is an oral agreement void when: (1) the agreement contemplates performance for a definite period of more than one year but (2) allows the party to be charged an option to terminate the agreement by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when (3) the party to be charged has not exercised that option to terminate the agreement?

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Oral argument, Thursday, May 5, 2005 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

04SC214 (1 HOUR)

|In the Matter of the Estate of Marian P. Klarner, deceased, |))))|For the Petitioners: |

| |))))|Michael Ogborn |

|Petitioners: |))))|Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, LLC |

| |))) |and |

|KATZ, LOOK & MOISON, P.C.; ARTHUR L. DALEY and DENIS F. DALEY, | |Ricardo M. Barrera |

|co-trustees, | |Ricardo M. Barrera, LLC |

| | | |

|v. | | |

| | |For the Respondents: |

|Respondents: | |William C. Waller, Jr. |

| | |N. Louise Wells |

|CAROL SHIRLEY and LINDA TURNWALL. | |Waller & Mark, P.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA2077

Docketed: April 12, 2004

At Issue: April 7, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals properly held that the decedent’s estate could not recover from the QTIP Trust a proportionate share of the state taxes paid by the estate.

Whether the court of appeals properly awarded attorney’s fees in this case.

______________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.

Oral Argument, Thursday, May 5 , 2005 EN BANC

Bailiff: Alex Myers

04SC553 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioner Lexie-Leigh Shepler: |

| |))))|Donald D. Vogt |

|LEXIE-LEIGH SHEPLER and SCOTT THORNOCK, |))) |Donald D. Vogt, LLC |

| | | |

|v. | |For the Petitioner Scott Thornock: |

| | |James K. Kreutz |

|Respondent: | |James K. Kreutz & Associates, P.C. |

| | | |

|MICHAEL WHALEN. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Teryl R. Gorrell |

| | |Kloepfer & Gorrell, P.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0509

Docketed: August 23, 2004

At Issue: March 25, 2005

ISSUE(S):

Whether a judgment debtor that fraudulently pays off a promissory note encumbering real property already titled in the name of the debtor’s spouse holds an equitable interest to which creditors’ recorded transcripts of judgment may attach.

Whether a junior judgment creditor is entitled to priority over senior judgment creditors where the junior judgment creditor first obtained an equitable lien against real property titled in a third person but tainted by a judgment debtor’s fraud.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument, Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

04SA347 (1 HOUR)

|In re: |))))|For the Petitioner Gloria Gina Alcon: |

| |))))|James M. Croshal |

|Plaintiff: |))))|Gradisor, Trechter, Ripperger, Roth & Croshal |

| |))))| |

|GLORIA GINA ALCON, |))))|For the Respondent Ronald Ray Spicer: |

| |))))|Robert D. Jones |

|v. |))) |Paul S. Edwards & Associates |

| | |and |

|Defendant: | |Richard L. Shearer |

| | |J. Alan Call |

|RONALD RAY SPICER. | |Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Copic Insurance Company: |

| | |Patrick T. O’Rourke |

| | |Kari MacKercher Hershey |

| | |Montgomery Little & McGrew, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: |

| | |James D. Johnson |

| | |Johnson & Ayd, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: |

| | |Mickey W. Smith |

Original Proceeding, District Court, Pueblo County, 03CV1613

Docketed: November 11, 2004

At Issue: March 4, 2005

ISSUE(S):

This case presents two essential issues. First, by filing a personal injury action, does a claimant inject into the controversy, all aspects of her physical condition such that the claimant has waived any patient-physician privilege as to every single medical record or pharmaceutical record ever generated by the claimant for any condition or illness; and second, where a claimant has provided wage information via W-2’s and employment records, has the required showing of compelling need been shown to access tax returns?

______________________________________________________________________________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download