SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 EN BANC

Bailiff: Christie Henke/Alison Flint

09SC621 (1 HOUR)

|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioner A.L.L.: |

| |))))|J. Barry Meinster |

|A. L. L. and D. Z., |))))|Meinster & Associates, PC |

| |))))| |

|v. |))))|For the Petitioner D.Z.: |

| |))))|Deborah Gans |

|Respondent: |))))| |

| |))))|For the Respondent: |

|The People of the State of Colorado, |))))|Alison D. Casias |

| |))))|Special Assistant County Attorney |

|In the Interest of Minor Child: |))))|Lake County Human Services |

| |))))| |

|C. Z. |))))|For the Guardian Ad Litem for C.Z.: |

| |) |Paula Constantakis Young |

| | |and |

| | |Robert G. Tweedell |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae El Paso County Department of Human Services: |

| | |William Louis |

| | |County Attorney |

| | |Laura C. Rhyne |

| | |Assistant County Attorney |

| | |El Paso County Attorney’s Office |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Office of the Child’s Representative: |

| | |Theresa Spahn |

| | |Executive Director |

| | |Sarah Ehrlich |

| | |Sheri Danz |

| | |Colorado Office of the Child’s Representative |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |cont’d on next page |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |cont’d from previous page |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Boulder County Department of Housing and Human |

| | |Services: |

| | |H. Lawrence Hoyt |

| | |County Attorney |

| | |Toni Jo Gray |

| | |Assistant County Attorney |

| | |Boulder County Attorney’s Office |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2159

Docketed: July 10, 2009

At Issue: October 23, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether Colorado should adopt a procedure under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), for dependency and neglect appeals that would apply to an indigent parent’s appeal of an order terminating parental rights when appointed counsel believes there are no viable issues for appeal. See, e.g. Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 194 S.W. 3d 739, 745-48 (Ark. 2004) (compiling cases).

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC972 ( 1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Neil I. Pomerantz |

|MDC Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Richmond American |))))|Robert R. Gunning |

|Homes of Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation, |))))|Mark E. Medina |

| |))) |Silverstein & Pomerantz, LLP |

|v. | | |

| | | |

|Respondents: | |For the Respondents: |

| | |Murray I. Weiner |

|Town of Parker, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation and Town | |Joseph L. Lambert |

|of Castle Rock, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation. | |Mulliken Weiner Karsh Berg & |

| | |Jolivet, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |and |

| | | |

| | |Edward A. Gleason |

| | |Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1758

Docketed: November 26, 2008

At Issue: October 30, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that letters written by outside legal counsel for the respondents constituted “final decisions” in accordance with section 29-2-106.1(2)(c), C.R.S. (2008), that commenced petitioner Richmond's thirty-day period for filing an appeal notwithstanding that the letters specifically stated the respondents' position that the matters were not yet ripe for final decisions.

Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing the respondents to benefit from municipal procedures which conflict with the uniform statute and their own characterization regarding the finality of the decision contained in the letters.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, December 3, 2009 EN BANC

Bailiff: Britta Stunkard/Elias Quinn

09SA224 ( 1.25 HOURS)

|District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV1188, |))))|For the Plaintiffs-Appellees: |

| |))))|Kerrie Dallman; Laurence Botnick; School District 14 Classroom |

|Plaintiffs-Appellees: |))))|Teachers Association Political Action Committee, a Colorado |

| |))))|political committee; School District 14 Classroom Teachers |

|Kerrie Dallman; Laurence Botnick; School District 14 Classroom |))))|Association, a Colorado labor organization; and Aurora Fire |

|Teachers Association Political Action Committee, a Colorado political|))))|Fighters Protective Association, a Colorado labor organization; |

|committee; School District 14 Classroom Teachers Association, a |))))|Mark G. Grueskin |

|Colorado labor organization; and Aurora Fire Fighters Protective |))))|Edward T. Ramey |

|Association, a Colorado labor organization; |))))|Isaacson Rosenbaum, P.C. |

| |))))| |

|v. |))))|For Plaintiffs-Appellees: |

| |))))|Kerrie Dallman; School District 14 Classroom Teachers Association|

|Defendants-Appellants: |))))|Political Action Committee, a Colorado political committee; |

| |))))|School District 14 Classroom Teachers Association, a Colorado |

|William Ritter, in his official capacity as the Governor of Colorado |))))|labor organization; |

|and Rich L. Gonzales, in his official capacity as the Executive |))))|Martha R Houser |

|Director of Colorado's Department of Personnel and Administration, |))))|Bradley C. Bartels |

| |))))|Colorado Education Association |

| | | |

| | |For the Plaintiffs-Appellees Aurora Firefighters Protective |

|District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV1200, | |Association, A Colorado Labor Organization and Douglas County |

| | |Federation: |

|Plaintiffs-Appellees: | |Thomas B. Buescher |

| | |Joseph M. Goldhammer |

|Daniel Ritchie, an individual; Patrick Hamill, an individual; Charles| |Buescher Goldhammer Kelman & |

|V. Brown, Jr., an individual; Matthew R. Dalton, an individual; The | |Dodge PC |

|Children's Hospital Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization; | | |

|and The Colorado Seminiary, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit which owns and | | |

|operates The University of Denver; | | |

| | | |

|v. | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |cont’d on next page |

|Defendants-Appellants: | | |

| | | |

|Bill Ritter, as Governor of the State of Colorado and Rich Gonzales, | |cont’d from previous page |

|as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Administration. | | |

| | | |

| | |For the Plaintiffs-Appellees Matthew Dalton, an individual; |

| | |Daniel Ritchie, an individual; Charles V. Brown, Jr., an |

| | |individual; The Children’s Hospital; The Colorado Seminary, a |

| | |501(c)(3) nonprofit which owns and operates the University of |

| | |Denver : |

| | |Jean E. Dubofsky |

| | |The Dubofsky Law Firm PC |

| | |and |

| | |Michael R. Davis |

| | |Douglas J. Friednash |

| | |Greenberg Traurig, LLP |

| | | |

| | |For the Defendants-Appellants: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Daniel D. Domenico |

| | |Solicitor General |

| | |Maurice G. Knaizer |

| | |Office of the Attorney General |

| | | |

| | |Amicus Curiae for Clean Government Colorado: |

| | |Robert M. Liechty |

| | |Cross & Liechty, P.C. |

Appeal from the District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV1188 and 09CV1200

Docketed: August 10, 2009

At Issue: November 30, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the First Amendment prohibits the People of Colorado from limiting contributions by those persons or entities choosing to accept, large sole source government contracts from government entities?

Whether Amendment 54 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague?

Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the People of Colorado from banning contributions to political campaigns by entities (and their political committees) representing government workers?

Whether the First Amendment prohibits the People of Colorado from disqualifying persons who make contributions to promote or influence the result of ballot issues from entering into a sole source government contract relating to that particular ballot issue?

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC784 ( 1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|J. Lawrence Hamil |

|Shirley S. Joondeph; Brian C. Joondeph; and CitiMortgage, Inc.; |))))|Alicia M. Smith |

| |))))|Meredith A. Munro |

|v. |) |Hamil/Hecht LLC |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Frederick B. Skillern |

|Donald P. Hicks. | |Max S. Stich |

| | |Montgomery Little Soran Murray, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae The Real Estate Section of the Colorado Bar |

| | |Association: |

| | |Geoffrey P. Anderson |

| | |Genevieve M. Bernal |

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

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA0995

Docketed: October 3, 2008

At Issue: September 28, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals' refusal to apply the doctrine of derivative subrogation -- the right of property owners to transfer equitable subrogation rights, by way of warranty deed, to subsequent purchasers -- improperly deprives property owners of their equitable subrogation rights and unjustly results in the conveyance of a diminished estate.

Whether, if this court declines to follow the doctrine of derivative subrogation, this court should abandon the rule that a lender’s actual knowledge of intervening liens prevents that lender’s ability to enforce the obligation it satisfied under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

Whether, if the court abandons this rule, petitioners may equitably subrogate to the senior lien position on the property.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download