SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



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

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Jennifer Seidenberg/Rachel Jones

09SA352 (1 HOUR)

|Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Upper Yampa Water |))))|For Applicant-Appellant: |

|Conservancy District in the Yampa River or its Tributaries in Routt |))))|Robert G. Weiss |

|and Moffat Counties, Colorado. |))))|Weiss & Van Scoyk, LLP |

| |))))|and |

|Applicant-Appellant: |))))|David C. Hallford |

| |))))|Scott A. Grosscup |

|Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, |))) |Balcomb & Green, P.C. |

| | | |

|v. | |For Opposers-Appellees: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|Opposers-Appellees: | |Attorney General |

| | |John Cyran |

|Dick Wolfe, State Engineer and Erin Light, Division Engineer, Water | |First Assistant Attorney General |

|Division 6. | |Scott Steinbrecher |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Tri-State Generation and Transmission |

| | |Association, Inc: |

| | |Timothy J. Beaton |

| | |Aaron S. Ladd |

| | |Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison and Woodruff, P.C. |

| | |and |

| | |Julie A. Rech |

| | |Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. |

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 6, 06CW43

Docketed: November 30, 2009

At Issue: June 25, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Can a water storage right be made absolute when water is diverted into storage for subsequent beneficial use, or must the entire amount of the storage vessel be vacated and applied to each decreed use from storage before the right can be perfected.

cont’d on next page

09SA352

cont’d from previous page

Where the physical water supply is insufficient to satisfy all water rights decreed to a diversion or storage structure, can the owner of that structure choose which of its water rights are diverted or stored by that structure.

Do the unique characteristics of the Four Counties water rights allow the District to determine when a particular water right is diverting, and therefore becomes absolute.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC1063 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Casey A. Quillen |

|Carol Constable f/k/a Carol Graham d/b/a Flowers n' Roses, |))))|Jeffrey Clay Ruebel |

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

|v. | | |

| | | |

|Respondents: | | |

| | |For the Respondent Northglenn, LLC, a Colorado limited liability |

|Northglenn, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and Jaylon Inc.| |company: |

| | |Michael L. Adams |

| | |Ray Lego & Associates |

| | |and |

| | |Alan Epstein |

| | |Hall & Evans, L.L.C. |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2045

Docketed: December 22, 2009

At Issue: August 31, 2010.

ISSUE(S):

Whether a landlord-tenant lease agreement that contractually requires a tenant to indemnify the landlord for the landlord’s own negligence is enforceable when the duty breached by the landlord is nondelegable.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November, 30, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC527 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Thomas J. Overton |

|Julie Bailey, individually, and as personal representative for the |))))|Richard J. Gleason |

|Estate of Brandon Magnuson, |)) |The Overton Law Firm |

| | |and |

|v. | |Paula Greisen |

| | |Laura E. Schwartz |

|Respondent: | |King & Greisen, LLC |

| | | |

|Lincoln General Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania insurance company. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Malcolm S. Mead |

| | |Peter F. Jones |

| | |George Koons III |

| | |Hall & Evans, L.L.C. |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA371

Docketed: June 25, 2009

At Issue: July 16, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the crime exclusion to supplemental liability insurance in the rental car agreement was not unconscionable and did not violate the doctrine of reasonable expectations.

Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the SLI exclusions are not contrary to public policy because the policy of fair compensation for innocent victims should override the crime exclusion under the circumstances of this case.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Chad Grell/Stuart Gillespie

09SC626 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Stephen H. Cook |

|Patricia Henisse, |))))|Cook & Associates, P.C. |

| |))))|and |

|v. |))))|Walter H. Sargent |

| |))))|Walter H. Sargent, P.C |

|Respondents: |))))| |

| |))))|For the Respondents: |

|First Transit, Inc., an Ohio corporation licensed to do business in |))))|William A. Rogers, III |

|Colorado and Eric Victor Cotton. |)) |Mark J. Jachimiak |

| | |Brendan L. Loy |

| | |Wood, Ris & Hames, P.C. |

| | | |

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

| | |Victoria C. Swanson |

| | |Sears & Swanson, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Regional Transportation District: |

| | |Rolf G. Asphaug |

| | |Deputy General Counsel |

| | | |

| | |(filed a joint brief) |

| | |For Amicus Curiae The State of Colorado: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Daniel D. Domenico |

| | |Solicitor General |

| | |Kathleen L. Spalding |

| | |Senior Assistant Attorney General |

| | |and |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency:|

| | | |

| | |Tami A. Tanoue |

| | |General Counsel |

cont’d on next page

09SC626

cont’d from previous page

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA962

Docketed: July 27, 2009

At Issue: July 23, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the employee of a private business is a “public employee” and entitled to governmental immunity based on the employer’s agreement with the Regional Transportation District.

Whether the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act limits the liability of a private employer that contracts with a governmental entity to perform public services when the negligence of that business’s employee causes injury and the sole claim against the employer is for vicarious liability of its employee.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Hillary Aizenman/Stuart Gillespie

09SC840 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Charles E. Norton |

|South Fork Water and Sanitation District, |)) |J. Michael Keane |

| | |Norton, Smith & Keane, P.C. |

|v. | | |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Karl J. Hanlon |

|Town of South Fork, Colorado. | |Cassia R. Furman |

| | |Karp Neu Hanlon, P.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA1969

Docketed: October 5, 2009

At Issue: July 26, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the Municipal Permission Statute, section 31-35-402(1)(b), C.R.S. (2008), grants South Fork Water and Sanitation District veto power over the Town of South Fork’s acquisition of water rights and private water systems.

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the District acted unreasonably in exercising its veto power under section 31-35-402(1)(b), C.R.S. (2008) and Town of Sheridan v. Valley Sanitation Dist., 137 Colo. 315, 324 P.2d 1038 (1958).

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

09SC263 (½ HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners: |

| |))))|John R. Mann |

|Katherine Allen and Katherine Allen, P.C., |))))|Daniel R. McCune |

| |))))|Miles L. Buckingham |

|v. |))))|Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. |

| |) | |

|Respondents: | |For the Respondents: |

| | |Paul Gordon |

|Jack Steele and Danette Steele. | |Paul Gordon, LLC. |

| | | |

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

| | |Troy R. Rackham |

| | |McConnell Fleischner Houghtaling & Craigmile, LLC |

| | | |

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

| | |Ross W. Pulkrabek |

| | |Daniel A. Wartell |

| | |Jones & Keller, P.C. |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA2163

Docketed: April 3, 2009

At Issue: September 17, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in imposing liability on attorneys to non-clients for negligent misrepresentation in light of Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson v. Cent. Bank Denver, 892 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1995).

Whether the court of appeals erred in relying on Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers section 15 (2000) as a basis for establishing a duty of care on a lawyer to a non-client.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC1011 (½ HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioner Build It and They Will Drink, Inc. d/b/a Eden |

| |))))|Night Club: |

|Build It and They Will Drink, Inc. d/b/a Eden Night Club and Rodney |))))|A. Peter Gregory |

|Owen Beers, |))))|Steven R. Helling |

| |) |Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison |

|v. | |& Powers, P.C. |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Wm. Andrew Wills, II |

|Michael Alan Strauch. | |John S. Pfeiffer |

| | |Wills & Adams, LLP |

| | | |

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

| | |Casey A. Quillen |

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

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2241

Docketed: December 8, 2009

At Issue: September 8, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that reasonable foreseeability (proximate cause) of the injury-causing event is not an element, or an appropriate consideration, in determining the liability of a licensee under section 12-47-801, C.R.S. (2009).

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Sarah Goldberg/Blake Reid

10SA92 ( 1 HOUR)

|Plaintiffs-Appellants: |))))|For the Plaintiffs-Appellants: |

| |))))|Robert B. Chapin |

|Elmer A. Kobobel, Mariam M. Kobobel, Larry A. Kobobel, Glen D. |))))|Anderson and Chapin, P.C. |

|Kobobel, David A. Knievel, and Margery A. Knievel, |))))|and |

| | |Lyman D. Bedford |

|v. | |Hanson Bridgett LLP |

| | | |

|Defendants-Appellees: | |For the Defendants-Appellees: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water| |Attorney General |

|Resources; Dick Wolfe, P.E., in his capacity as the Colorado State | |Patrick L. Sayas |

|Engineer; and James R. Hall, in his capacity as Division Engineer of | |Assistant Attorney General |

|Water Division No. 1. | | |

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 09CW175

Docketed: April 8, 2010

At Issue: September 10, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Did the water court apply the correct standards in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Was the water court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims within the scope of its jurisdiction.

Did the water court err in holding that plaintiffs had no property rights capable of being taken.

Did the water court err, as a matter of fact and law, in holding that the cease and desist orders did not constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ property.

If the water court had jurisdiction to rule on the inverse condemnation issues, was it error to do so without an evidentiary hearing.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, December 2, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Douglas Edwards/Grant Sullivan

09SC534 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners: |

| |))))|Gregory J. Kerwin |

|Qwest Services Corporation and Qwest Corporation, |))))|Robert C. Marshall |

| |))))|Frederick R. Yarger |

|v. |))))|Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP |

| |))))|and |

|Respondents: |))))|Thomas N. Alfrey |

| |))))|Robert J. Zavaglia, Jr. |

|Andrew Blood, Carrie Blood, and Public Service Company of Colorado |))))|Treece, Alfrey, Musat & Bosworth, P.C. |

|d/b/a Xcel Energy. |))))| |

| |) |For the Respondents Andrew and Carrie Blood: |

| | |William L. Keating |

| | |Michael O’Brien Keating |

| | |Fogel, Keating, Wagner, Polidori, and Shafner, P.C. |

| | |and |

| | |Richard A. Westfall |

| |))))|Peter J. Krumholz |

| |))))|Hale Westfall, LLP |

| |))))| |

| |)) |For the Respondent Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Excel|

| | |Energy: |

| | |John Lebsack |

| | |David J. Nowak |

| | |White and Steele, PC |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Chamber of Commerce of the United States: |

| | |Malcolm E. Wheeler |

| | |Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP |

| | |and |

| | |Evan M. Tager (pro hac vice) |

| | |Mayer Brown LLP |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: |

| | |James D. Johnson |

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

| | | |

| | | |

| | |cont’d on next page |

| | |09SC534 |

| | |cont’d from previous page |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus The American Association for Justice: |

| | |Thomas Neville |

| | |Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn |

| | |and |

| | |Andre Mura (pro-hac vice) |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus the State of Colorado: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Daniel D. Domenico |

| | |Solicitor General |

| | |Megan Paris Rundlet |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA134

Docketed: June 26, 2009

At Issue: September 3, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the punitive damages award against Qwest violates the Due Process Clauses of the federal and Colorado constitutions as interpreted in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007).

Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the punitive damage award against Qwest on de novo review, applying Due Process principles and Colorado requirements for willful and wanton conduct.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC828 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Douglas K. Wilson |

|David Lee Cropper, |))) |Public Defender |

| | |Rebecca R. Freyre |

|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|The People of the State of Colorado. | |Attorney General |

| | |Deborah Isenberg Pratt |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1001

Docketed: October 1, 2009

At Issue: August 27, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded counsel's inaction under section 16-3-109(5) constituted a valid waiver of Petitioner's state and federal confrontation rights under this court's decision in Hinojos-Medoza, contrary to well established federal and state law concerning the waiver of constitutional rights and this court's decision in Mojica-Simental.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: December 2, 2010, 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC966 ( 1 HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners: |

| |))))|Bennett L. Cohen |

|Ivar E. Larson, Donna M. Larson, Lauren Sandberg, and Kay F. |))))|Polsinelli Shughart PC |

|Sandberg, |))))|and |

| |))))|Daniel W. Dean |

|v. | |Dean & Reid, LLC |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John R. Sperber |

|Sinclair Transportation Company d/b/a Sinclair Pipeline Company, a | |Brandee L. Caswell |

|Wyoming corporation. | |Sarah A. Mastalir |

| | |Faegre & Benson LLP |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Oil and Gas Association and Colorado |

| | |Petroleum Association: |

| | |Kenneth A. Wonstolen |

| | |Jamie L. Lost |

| | |William Sparks |

| | |Beatty & Wozniak, P.C. |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA1249

Docketed: November 20, 2009

At Issue: August 25, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that section 38-5-105, C.R.S., grants Sinclair Transportation Company the power of eminent domain.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that potential safety issues and regulations need not be considered when determining whether “the particular land lies within a route which is the most direct route practicable,” under section 38-1-101.5, C.R.S.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download