SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 EN BANC

Bailiff: Abe Alexander/Judy Harvey

08SA222 (1 HOUR)

|Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City of Aurora, |))))|For the Applicant-Appellant: |

|Colorado, acting by and through its utility enterprise in Adams, |))))|Steven O. Sims |

|Arapahoe, Douglas and Weld Counties. |))))|Adam T. DeVoe |

| |))))|John A. Helfrich |

|Applicant-Appellant: |))))|Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP |

| |))))| |

|The City of Aurora, acting by and through its utility enterprise, |))))|For the Opposer-Appellee Rangeview Metropolitan District: |

| |))))|Frederick A. Fendel, III |

|v. |))))|Matthew S. Poznanovic |

| | |Petrock & Fendel, P.C. |

|Opposers-Appellees: | | |

| | |For the Opposer-Appellee Northern Colorado Water Conservancy |

|ACJ Partnership, Apex Material Specialists LLC, Bijou Irrigation | |District: |

|Company, Bijou Irrigation District, Brighton Ditch Company, | |Robert V. Trout |

|Centennial Water and Sanitation District, City of Brighton, City of | |Douglas M. Sinor |

|Thornton, City and County of Denver, East Cherry Creek Valley Water | |Trout, Raley, Montańo, Witwer & Freeman, P.C. |

|and Sanitation District, Eastern Hills LLC, Eastside Auto Investment | |(Entry of Appearance Only) |

|Co., LLLP, Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, Henrylyn | | |

|Irrigation District, New Brantner Extension Ditch Company, Northern | | |

|Colorado Water Conservancy District, Public Service Company of | | |

|Colorado, Rangeview Metropolitan District, South Adams County Water | | |

|and Sanitation, State Board of Land Commissioners and Stephen Tebo, | | |

| | | |

|and | | |

| | | |

|Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e): | | |

| | | |

|Division Engineer for Water Division 1. | | |

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 03CW415

Docketed: June 27, 2008

At Issue: January 7, 2009

Cont’d on Next Page

Cont’d from Previous Page

ISSUE(S):

Whether the water court erred in granting a partial summary judgment when it held that Aurora did not satisfy the can and will requirements of §37-92-305(9)(b) C.R.S. (2007), due to its present inability to access the Disputed Reservoir Sites.

Whether the water court erred when it rigidly applied the can and will provisions when speculation was not an issue in the application.

Whether the water court erred when it used the can and will provisions to resolve property ownership issues instead of focusing on whether Aurora had the ability to complete its conditional water right appropriation.

Whether the water court erred when the dispositive factor in its can and will analysis was Aurora’s present inability to access the Disputed Reservoir Sites.

Whether the water court erred when it held that the Land Board had made a final decision denying Aurora access to the sites.

Whether the water court erred when it held that granting the lease was tantamount to a final decision denying access to the sites.

Whether the water court erred when it considered Rangeview’s lack of consent to use the Disputed Reservoir Sites a final decision denying Aurora access to the sites.

Whether the water court erred in granting a partial summary judgment when there were genuine issues of material fact at issue.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

08SA321 (½ HOUR)

|In Re |))))|For the Plaintiffs: |

| |))))|Anthony J. Viorst |

|Plaintiffs: |))))|The Viorst Law Offices, P.C. |

| |))))| |

|Gennaro DeSantis, individually and as representative of the Estate of|))))|For the Defendant John S. Simon, M.D.: |

|Virginia DeSantis, Pamela Buckner, Terry Elliott and Cynthia Naeb, |) |David D. Karr |

| | |Donald E. Lake |

|v. | |Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C. |

| | | |

|Defendants: | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Board of Medical Examiners: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|John S. Simon, M.D. and Michael Fenoglio, M.D. | |Attorney General |

| | |Daniel D. Domenico |

| | |Solicitor General |

| | |Diana E. Black |

| | |Deputy Attorney General |

| | |Ilene Wolf Moore |

| | |First Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Charmaine C. Rose |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

Original Proceeding, District Court, Adams County, 07CV1140

Docketed: September 19, 2008

At Issue: December 1, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court erred in denying Dr. Simon’s motion for protective order relative to plaintiff’s subpoena and notice of deposition for Dr. Simon to produce all materials related to investigations by the BME.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC122 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|James Peters |

|Herman Jenkins, Bebra Jenkins, Bonnie Bills, Travis Law, Rainey |))))|and |

|Estes, and Nathanniel Estes, |)) |Qusair Mohamedbhai |

| | | |

|v. | |For the Respondents: |

| | |Jennifer Osgood |

|Respondents: | |Dana L. Eismeier |

| | |Burns Figa & Will, P.C. |

|Panama Canal Railroad Company d/b/a Panama Rail Tourism Company, The | | |

|Estate of Stephen O'Donnell, and Kansas City Southern Railway | | |

|Company. | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA846

Docketed: February 11, 2008

At Issue: January 16, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred when it applied Panama’s one year statute of limitations for tort actions, under Colorado’s Borrowing Statute rather than Colorado’s two (2) year statute of limitations under the Uniform Conflict of Laws - Limitations Act.

Whether the court of appeals erred when it determined the Borrowing Statute to be the more specific statute then the Uniform Conflict of Laws - Limitations Act.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 EN BANC

Bailiff: Katherine Yarger/Clark Smith

08SA169 (1 HOUR)

|In Re |))))|For the Plaintiff: |

| |))))|Mitchell R. Morrissey |

|Plaintiff: |))) |District Attorney |

| | |Robert J. Whitley |

|The People of the State of Colorado, | |Chief Deputy District Attorney |

| | | |

|v. | |For the Defendant: |

| | |Norman R. Mueller |

|Defendant: | |Rachel A. Bellis |

| | |Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, P.C. |

|Eugene Summers. | | |

Original Proceeding, District Court, City and County of Denver, 07CR2063

Docketed: May 16, 2008

At Issue: December 2, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying Mr. Summers’ motion to dismiss when all charges against Mr. Summers are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC438 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Nicholas Gradisar |

|Brenda Sperry, |) |Gradisar, Trechter, Ripperger, Roth & Croshal |

| | | |

|v. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Craig W. Cain |

|Respondent: | |Jennifer L. White |

| | |Cain & Hayter, LLP |

|Sherry Field. | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA282

Docketed: June 6, 2008

At Issue: January 2, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court and the court of appeals, in considering a question of first impression, erred in construing, C.R.S. section 13-21-101(2)(b) by disregarding the plain, clear language of the statute and holding that a personal injury judgment creditor is entitled to interest following an appeal by the judgment debtor from the date of the judgment rather than from the date the action accrued.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

07SC913 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Alan Epstein |

|Union Pacific Railroad Company, a foreign corporation and Dannie |))))|Hall & Evans, L.L.C. |

|Dolan, individually, |))))|and |

| |))))|Steven E. Napper |

|v. |))))|Mark C. Hansen |

| |)) |Alice M. De Stigter |

|Respondents: | |Union Pacific Railroad Company |

| | |and |

|David Martin and Rebecca Martin, parents and next friends to Maureen | |Andrew M. Low |

|Martin, a minor and incapacitated person. | |Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP |

| | | |

| | |For the Respondents: |

| | |Richard A. Westfall |

| | |Allan L. Hale |

| | |Peter J. Krumholz |

| | |Hale Friesen, LLP |

| | |and |

| | |Glen F. Gordon |

| | |Robert A. Schuetze |

| | |Schuetze & Gordon, LLP |

| | | |

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

| | |Brian J. Waters |

| | |Levy, Morse & Wheeler, P.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1917

Docketed: October 24, 2007

At Issue: January 20, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the statutory defenses of comparative negligence and pro rata fault of non-parties are available in an action under the 1990 Premises Liability Act.

In determining legislative intent for the purpose of construing an ambiguous statute: (a) whether a court should give greater weight to the statute itself or to a later amendment to the statute, which does not apply to the case; and (b) whether a court should give greater weight to the General Assembly's statements in the bill itself or to oral comments by a sponsor of the bill.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download