SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 EN BANC
Bailiff: Matt Spengler
07SC223 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Alan S. Thompson |
|ALLAN J. ROBBINS, |) |Lohf Shaiman Jacobs Hyman |
| | |& Feiger, P.C. |
|v. | | |
| | |For the Respondent: |
|Respondent: | |Martin M. Berliner |
| | |Steven W. McDonald |
|A. B. GOLDBERG. | |Berliner McDonald P.C. |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1884
Docketed: March 27, 2007
At Issue: March 24, 2008
ISSUE(S):
Whether C.R.C.P. 54(h) deprives judgment creditors of their fundamental property rights without due process of law and subjects them to an arbitrary power beyond their control, in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 2, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, because it permits judgments to lapse without any hearing or opportunity to affect revival, and only as a result of the trial court’s refusal to consider and rule timely upon, a petition for revival.
Whether C.R.C.P. 54(h) deprives judgment creditors of full access to judicial process as required by article 2, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution (the open courts provision) and Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994), when it allows judgments to lapse solely as a result of trial court inaction.
Whether Mark v. Mark, 697 P.2d 799 (Colo. App. 1984), improperly infringes the legislature’s exclusive power to limit jurisdiction because it declares, without authority, that judgments which expire, even while a revival petition is pending, divest the court of jurisdiction.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
07SC263 (½ HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Mary A. Wells |
|THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, |))))|L. Michael Brooks, Jr. |
| |))))|Sarah Smyth O’Brien |
|v. |))))|Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC |
| |))))|and |
|Respondent: |))))|Roger P. Thomasch |
| |)) |Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP |
|GARY S. HOLMES. | |and |
| | |David L. Lenyo |
| | |Chad J. Schmit |
| | |Garfield & Hecht, PC |
| | | |
| | |For the Respondent: |
| | |Stephen G. Masciocchi |
| | |David L. Black |
| | |William W. Maywhort |
| | |Holland & Hart LLP |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Homeowners Against Deficient|
| | |Dwellings (HADD): |
| | |Ronald M. Sandgrund |
| | |Leslie A. Tuft |
| | |Jennifer A. Seidman |
| | |Sullan², Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak PC |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: |
| | |Jesse Howard Witt |
| | |Benson & Associates PC |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA2177
Docketed: April 6, 2007
At Issue: February 4, 2008
ISSUE:
Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a plaintiff in a property-damage product-liability case to recover prejudgment interest on replacement costs from the date of the purchase of the product, which was nearly a decade before the replacement costs were incurred, more than doubling his recovery.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
07SC159 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Douglas K. Wilson |
|RENE DELAROSA-RAMIREZ, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |
| |) |Cory D. Riddle |
|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |
| | |Lindsey Webb |
|Respondent: | |Deputy State Public Defender |
| | | |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF | |For the Respondent: |
|COLORADO. | |John W. Suthers |
| | |Colorado State Attorney General |
| | |Roger G. Billotte |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0273
Docketed: March 5, 2007
At Issue: February 19, 2008
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by failing to consider petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of subsection (d) of the criminal impersonation statute, C.R.S. section 18-5-113(1), on grounds that the statute is both facially void for vagueness and unconstitutionally vague as applied to petitioner.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meaning of the word “might” in the criminal impersonation statute did not require reversal of petitioner’s conviction.
Whether the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the district court did not err in permitting irrelevant and prejudicial testimony to be introduced to the jury through a prosecution witness.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the prosecution introduced sufficient evidence to prove the elements of criminal impersonation beyond a reasonable doubt.
________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 EN BANC
Bailiff: Daniela Ronchetti
07SC445 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|J. Andrew Nathan |
|CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, a Colorado municipal corporation, |))))|Heidi J. Hugdahl |
| |)) |Allyson C. Hodges |
|v. | |Marni Nathan Kloster |
| | |Nathan, Bremer, Dumm & Myers, P.C. |
|Respondent: | |and |
| | |Thomas E. Merrigan |
|ENCLAVE WEST INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation. | |Berg, Hill, Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP |
| | | |
| | |For the Respondent: |
| | |Robert J. Bruce |
| | |Delphine L. Farr |
| | |Lawlis & Bruce, LLC |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA2686
Docketed: May 24, 2007
At Issue: February 7, 2008
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in finding an abuse of discretion by sua sponte limiting Commerce City Council’s legal authority to hear evidence “relevant to the denial of a license application,” as authorized by City Ordinance §9-456(d)(1), to
only those “matters relevant to the reason for denial” initially given by the Inspector.
Whether the court of appeals erred when it ordered Commerce City
to immediately grant the business license because, in doing so, it substituted its discretion for that of the local legislative body.
___________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
06SC521 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Douglas K. Wilson |
|JAMES KINNEY, |))) |Colorado State Public Defender |
| | |Andrea A. Manning |
|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | |Colorado State Attorney General |
| | |Katherine A. Hansen |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0781
Docketed: August 14, 2006
At Issue: April 9, 2008
ISSUE(S):
Whether, when evidence of a prior bad act is admitted under CRE 404(b), the jury should be informed that the defendant was acquitted of the alleged prior act.
Whether petitioner’s confrontation rights were violated when the district court precluded him from questioning a prosecution witness about a pending misdemeanor case.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:30 p.m.
Bailiff: Amanda Hassid EN BANC
07SC732 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Douglas K. Wilson |
|LORENZO SAYLES, |))) |Colorado State Public Defender |
| | |Elizabeth Griffin |
|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | |Colorado State Attorney General |
| | |Matthew S. Holman |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0780
Docketed: August 23, 2007
At Issue: March 28, 2008
ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in refusing to convene a new jury panel or to grant a new trial because of Arapahoe County’s systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the venire.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 8:45 a.m.
Oral Argument: Thursday, May, 1, 2008 EN BANC
Bailiff: Sarah Mercer
Courts in the Community
Delta Performing Arts Center
Delta, Colorado
07SC166 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioner Turene Lombard: |
| |))))|James M. Croshal |
|TURENE LOMBARD and PUEBLO SCHOOL DISTRICT #60, |))))|and |
| |))))|Mickey W. Smith |
|v. |))))| |
| |))))|For the Petitioner Pueblo School District #60: |
|Respondents: |))))|Jeffrey C. Fleischner |
| |) | |
|COLORADO OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER, INC., a Colorado non-profit | |For the Respondents: |
|corporation, and SANBORN WESTERN CAMPS, INC., a Colorado non-profit | |Diane Vaksdal Smith |
|corporation, d/b/a THE NATURE PLACE. | |Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh |
| | |& Jardine, P.C. |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: |
| | |Ralph Ogden |
| | |(did not file on the merits) |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: |
| | |Mac Hester |
| | |Bachus & Schanker, LLC |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: |
| | |Jeffrey Clay Ruebel |
| | |Maureen A. Sweeney |
| | |Campbell, Latiolais & Ruebel, P.C. |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1781
Docketed: March 8, 2007
At Issue: March 25, 2008
Cont’d on next page
07SC166
Cont’d from previous page
ISSUE(S):
Whether the Colorado Premises Liability Act, section 13-21-115, C.R.S., abrogates the common law principle of negligence per se in the premises liability context.
Whether courts may presume that landowners have knowledge of the particular provisions of building codes, or other similar codes, in a premises liability case.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:15 a.m.
EN BANC
07SC614 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Anthony Viorst |
|TREVON D. WASHINGTON, |)) |The Viorst Law Offices, P.C. |
| | | |
|v. | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
|Respondent: | |Colorado State Attorney General |
| | |Matthew S. Holman |
|THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. | |First Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1895
Docketed: July 16, 2007
At Issue: March 28, 2008
ISSUE(S):
Whether the trial court and the court of appeals erred in declining to vacate Petitioner's convictions based upon the State's non-compliance with the "fair cross-section" requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- state of colorado division of banking
- state of colorado auditor s office
- state of colorado department of treasury
- state of colorado unclaimed property
- supreme court definition of marriage
- state of colorado department of motor vehicles
- us supreme court number of justices
- supreme court review of obamacare
- supreme court review of aca
- state of colorado department of health
- state of colorado department of human services
- state of colorado dept of health