SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 EN BANC
Bailiff: Jason Malinsky/Ginette Chapman
08SC185 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners: |
| |))))|Alexander Halpern |
|Anthony Lobato, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian |))))|Michelle Murphy |
|of Taylor Lobato and Alexa Lobato; Denise Lobato, as an individual |))))|Jennifer Albert Morgan |
|and as parent and natural guardian of Taylor Lobato and Alexa Lobato;|))))|Alexander Halpern LLC |
|Jaime Hurtado and Coralee Hurtado, as individuals and as parents and |))))|and |
|natural guardians of Maria Hurtado and Evan Hurtado; Janet L. Kuntz, |))))|Kathleen J. Gebhardt |
|as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Daniel Kuntz |))))|Kathleen J. Gebhardt LLC |
|and Stacey Kuntz; Pantaleon Villagomez and Maria Villagomez, as |))))| |
|individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Chris Villagomez,|))))|For the Respondents: |
|Monique Villagomez and Angel Villagomez; Linda Warsh, as an |)) |John W. Suthers |
|individual and as parent and natural guardian of Adam Warsh, Karen | |Attorney General |
|Warsh and Ashley Warsh; Elaine Gerdin, as an individual and as parent| |Daniel D. Domenico |
|and natural guardian of N.T., J.G. and N.G.; Dawn Hartung, as an | |Solicitor General |
|individual and as parent and natural guardian of Q.H.; Paul | |Carey Taylor Markel |
|Lastrella, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of |))))|Senior Assistant Attorney General |
|B.L.; Woodrow Longmire, as an individual and as parent and natural |))))|Anthony B. Dyl |
|guardian of Tianna Longmire; Steve Seibert and Dana Seibert, as |))))|Senior Assistant Attorney General |
|individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Rebecca Seibert |))))| |
|and Andrew Seibert; Olivia Wright, as an individual and as parent and|))))|For Amicus Curiae Colorado Education Association: |
|natural guardian of A.E. and M.E.; Herbert Conboy and Victoria |))))|Martha R. Houser |
|Conboy, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of |))))|Bradley Bartels |
|Tabitha Conboy and Timothy Conboy; Terry Hart, as an individual and |))))| |
|as parent and natural guardian of Katherine Hart; Larry Howe-Kerr and|))))|For Amici Curiae Colorado Association of School Boards and |
|Kathy Howe-Kerr, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians |))))|Colorado Association of School Executives: |
|of Lauren Howe-Kerr and Luke Howe-Kerr; John T. Lane, as an |))))|Kathleen A. Sullivan |
|individual; Jennifer Pate, as an individual and as parent and natural|))))| |
|guardian of Ethan Pate and Evelyn |) |For Amicus Curiae Education Justice at Education Law Center: |
| | |Martha M. Tierney |
| | |Kelly Garnsey Hubbell & Lass LLC |
| |) | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado League of Charter Schools: |
|Pate; Robert L. Podio and Blanche J. Podio, as individuals and as |) |William P. Bethke |
|parents and natural guardians of Robert Podio and Samantha Podio; |))))|Kutz & Bethke LLC |
|Tami Quandt, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of |))))| |
|Brianna Quandt, Cody Quandt and Levi Quandt; Brenda Christian, as an |))))| |
|individual and as parent and natural guardian of Ryan Christian; Toni|))))|Cont’d on Next Page |
|L. McPeek, as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of |))))| |
|M.J. McPeek, Cassie McPeek and Michael McPeek; Christine Tiemann, as |))))| |
|an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Emily Tiemann and|))))| |
|Zachary Tiemann; Paula VanBeek, as an individual and as parent and |))) |Cont’d from Previous Page |
|natural guardian of Kara VanBeek and Antonius VanBeek; Larry Haller | | |
|and Pennie Haller, as individuals and as parents and natural | |For Amici Curiae Colorado Lawyers Committee and the Colorado |
|guardians of Kelly Haller and Brandy Haller; Tim Hunt and Sabrina | |Center on Law and Policy: |
|Hunt, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Shannon | |Steven M. Kaufmann |
|Moore-Hiner, Eris Moore, Darean Hunt and Jeffrey Hunt; Mike McCaleb | |Osman E. Nawaz |
|and Julie McCaleb, as individuals and as parents and natural | |Morrison & Foerster LLP |
|guardians of Rebekka McCaleb, Layne McCaleb and Lynde McCaleb; Todd | |and |
|Thompson and Judy Thompson, as individuals and as parents and natural| |Edwin S. Kahn |
|guardians of Garson Thompson and Tarek Thompson; Doug Vondy and | | |
|Denise Vondy, as individuals and as parents and natural guardians of | |For Amicus Curiae Great Education Colorado: |
|Kyle Leaf and Hannah Vondy; Brad Weisensee and Traci Weisensee, as | |Kenzo S. Kawanabe |
|individuals and as parents and natural guardians of Joseph Weisensee,| |Terry R. Miller |
|Anna Weisensee, Amy Weisensee and Elijah Weisensee; Stephen Topping, | |Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP |
|as an individual and as parent and natural guardian of Michael | | |
|Topping; Donna Wilson, as an individual and as parent and natural | |For Amicus Curiae Padres Unidos and Meta: |
|guardian of Ari Wilson, Sarah Patterson, Madelyn Patterson and Taren | |Manuel L. Martinez |
|Wilson-Patterson; David Maes, as an individual and as parent and | |Holme, Roberts & Owen, LLP |
|natural guardian of Cherie Maes; Debbie Gould, as an individual and | |and |
|as parent and natural guardian of Hannah Gould, Ben Gould and Daniel | |David G. Hinojosa |
|Gould; Lillian Leroux, as an individual and as parent and natural | |Nina Perales |
|guardian of Ari Leroux, Lillian Leroux, Ashley Leroux, Alexandria | |Maldef |
| | | |
| | | |
|Leroux and Amber Leroux; Theresa Wrangham, as an individual and | | |
|natural guardian of Rachel Wrangham and Deanna Wrangham; Alamosa | | |
|School District, No. RE-11J; Centennial School District No. R-1; | | |
|Center Consolidated School District No. 26 JT, of the Counties of | | |
|Saguache and Rio Grande and Alamosa; Creede Consolidated School | | |
|District No. 1 in the County of Mineral and State of Colorado; Del | | |
|Norte Consolidated School District No. C-7; Moffat School District | | |
|No. 2, in the County of Saquache and State of Colorado; Monte Vista | | |
|School District No. C-8; Mountain Valley School District No. RE 1; | | |
|North Conejos School District No. RE-1J; Sanford School District No. | | |
|6, in the County of Conejos and State of Colorado; Sangre De Cristo | | |
|School District, No. RE-22J; Sargent School District No. RE-33J; | | |
|Sierra Grande School District No. R-30; and South Conejos School | | |
|District No. RE10; | | |
| | | |
|v. | | |
| | | |
|Respondents: | | |
| | | |
|The State of Colorado; Colorado State Board of Education; Dwight | | |
|Jones, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education of the | | |
|State of Colorado; and Bill Ritter, in his official capacity as | | |
|Governor of the State of Colorado. | |Cont’d to Next Page |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Cont’d from Previous Page |
| | | |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA733
Docketed: March 7, 2008
At Issue: February 10, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that claims regarding educational quality and adequacy of school funding brought pursuant to article IX, section 2 of the Colorado Constitution (the Education Clause) present nonjusticiable political questions.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the school districts do not have standing to bring suit under article IX, section 15, of the Colorado Constitution (the Local Control Clause) challenging the constitutionality of the Colorado system of public school finance.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
08SC384 (½ HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Victor M. Morales |
|B.B. & C. Partnership, |) |C. Adam Foster |
| | |McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & |
|v. | |Carpenter, LLP |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |Wendy E. Weigler |
|The Edelweiss Condominium Association. | |Lansky Weigler, P.C. |
| | | |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA1526
Docketed: May 19, 2008
At Issue: April 23, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, petitioner could not adversely possess a parking space on condominium property pursuant to C.R.S. section 38-41-108 (adverse possession under color of title) where petitioner had parked a car in the space without objection for over twenty years, paid property taxes for the space for over twenty years, recorded a warranty deed assigning the space to petitioner with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder and paid condominium dues.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that C.R.S. section 38-41-108 does not, as a matter of law, apply to condominium common elements.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
08SC401 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Richard T. LiPuma |
|Lake Canal Reservoir Company, Lake Canal Company, Alden V. Hill, and |))))|LiPuma Law Associates, LLC |
|Ann L. Deseran, |) |and |
| | |Robert S. Anderson |
|v. | | |
| | |For the Respondent: |
|Respondents: | |Jennifer Lynn Peters |
| | |Charles M. Shoop |
|Douglas C. Beethe; Terese L. Beethe; Chris Woodruff, County Assessor;| |Otis, Coan & Stewart, LLC |
|John Lefebvre, County Treasurer; and Susie Velasquez, Trustee of Weld| | |
|County. | | |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA1467
Docketed: May 27, 2008
At Issue: April 27, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether a tax deed attempting to convey a reservoir property not subject to separate taxation is void.
Whether an action seeking to quiet title to the reservoir property is subject to the statute of limitations if the tax deed is void.
Whether equity requires invalidation of a tax deed purporting to convey improperly assessed reservoir property.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 EN BANC
Bailiff: Erin Overturf/Ruth Mackey
08SA312 (1 HOUR)
|Concerning the Matter of the Rules Governing New Withdrawals of |))))|For the Appellants Cotton Creek Circles, LLC and Colorado |
|Ground Water in Water Division No. 3 Affecting the Rate or Direction |))))|Association of Home Builders: |
|of Movement of Water in the Confined Aquifer System aka "Confined |))))|Allan L. Hale |
|Aquifer New Use Rules for Division 3" |))))|Richard A. Westfall |
| |))))|Peter J. Krumholz |
|Appellants: |))))|Hale Friesen LLP |
| |))))|and |
|Cotton Creek Circles, LLC; Colorado Association of Home Builders; and|))))|Bennett Raley |
|San Luis Valley Water Co. LLC; |))))|Lisa Thompson |
| |))) |Trout, Raley, Montano, Witwer & Freeman, PC |
|v. | | |
| | |For Appellants San Luis Valley Water, Co., LLC: |
|Appellees: | |Stephen D. Gurr |
| | |John D. Mereness |
|Rio Grande Water Conservation District; Rio Grande Water Users | |Kamlet Shepherd & Reichert LLP |
|Association; Conejos Water Conservancy District; and Dick Wolfe, in | | |
|his official capacity as the State Engineer for the State of | |For Appellees Dick Wolfe, in his official capacity as the State |
|Colorado. | |Engineer for the State of Colorado: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
| |))))|Attorney General |
| |) |Peter J. Ampe |
| | |First Assistant Attorney General |
| | | |
| | |For Appellees Rio Grande Water Conservation District: |
| | |David W. Robbins |
| | |Dennis M. Montgomery |
| | |Ingrid C. Barrier |
| | |Hill & Robbins, P.C. |
| | | |
| | |For Appellees Rio Grande Water Users Association: |
| | |William A. Paddock |
| | |Beth Ann J. Parsons |
| | |Carlson, Hammond & Paddock, LLC |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Cont’d on Next Page |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |Cont’d from Previous Page |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |For Appellees Conejos Water Conservancy District: |
| | |Richard J. Mehren |
| | |Moses Wittemyer Harrison & |
| | |Woodruff P.C. |
| | | |
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 3, 04CW24
Docketed: September 8, 2008
At Issue: April 20, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the water court erred in awarding costs under C.R.C.P. 54(d) in this rulemaking proceeding where: (1) there is no precedent for doing so and this Court's past decisions indicate that costs are not awardable in water rulemaking proceedings; (2) the only way to participate in the water rulemaking process is to file a protest in water court; and (3) the risk of incurring an enormous cost award will discourage citizens from participating in the process, contrary to the intent of the General Assembly.
Whether the water court abused its discretion in awarding costs despite finding that a long and complex trial would have been required even in the absence of the objector's protests.
Whether the "objectors in support" are "prevailing parties" under C.R.C.P. 54(d) where: (1) they were not the actual proponents of the proposed rules; (2) the applicable statutes make no provision for their participation; and (3) any benefits derived from the litigation were indistinguishable from the benefits derived by the actual proponent, the State Engineer.
Whether the water court, having found that the objectors' protests resulted in only a one-third increase in the court time required to provide a foundation and justification for the proposed rules, abused its discretion in awarding two-thirds of the cost against the objectors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
08SC418 (½ HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|John W. Suthers |
|The People of the State of Colorado, |) |Attorney General |
| | |Matthew S. Holman |
|v. | |First Assistant Attorney General |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |Jami L. Vigil |
|Robert Gene Valenzuela, Jr. | | |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA26
Docketed: May 30, 2009
At Issue: May 11, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, an offense wholly contained in section 18-18-405(1)(a), C.R.S. (2007) constitutes an extraordinary risk crime under section 18-1.3-401(10), C.R.S. (2007).
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
08SC587 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioners: |))))|For the Petitioners: |
| |))))|Andrew Rosen |
|David H. Currier and Heather S. Schultz, |))))|Stone & Rosen P.C. |
| |))))| |
|v. |))))|For the Respondent Michael Sutherland, Special Administrator of |
| |))))|the Estate of Eloy Lopez: |
|Respondents: |))))|Gary L. Palumbo |
| |) |Peter M. Spiessbach |
|Michael Sutherland, Special Administrator of the Estate of Eloy | |Bayer & Carey, P.C. |
|Lopez; Estate of Eloy Lopez; and State Farm Mutual Automobile | | |
|Insurance Company. | |For Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company: |
| | |Marc R. Levy |
| | |Levy, Morse & Wheeler, P.C. |
| | |(Joinder only filed 3-20-09) |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: |
| | |Alexa R. Salg |
| | |Thomas L. Roberts |
| | |Beth A. Tomerlin |
| | |Roberts Levin Rosenberg PC |
| | | |
| | |For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: |
| | |John R. Mann |
| | |Matthew M. Linton |
| | |Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1263
Docketed: July 24, 2008
At Issue: April 9, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals, by adopting the modern trend of capacity vs. subject matter jurisdiction when suit is filed against a non-existent defendant, has improperly defeated the legislative intent behind the remedial revival statute.
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 EN BANC
Bailiff: Judy Harvey/Abe Alexander
08SC378 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Jean E. Dubofsky |
|Charles M. Krutsinger, |))))|Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C. |
| |))) |and |
|v. | |Michael P. Zwiebel |
| | |Springer & Steinberg, P.C. |
|Respondent: | |and |
| | |Dean Neuwirth |
|The People of the State of Colorado. | |Dean Neuwirth P.C. |
| | | |
| | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
| | |Attorney General |
| | |Majid Yazdi |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA532
Docketed: May 20, 2008
At Issue: May 18, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals correctly articulated and applied the materiality standard to assess the harmfulness of erroneously-excluded defense evidence.
______________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:30 p.m.
EN BANC
08SC559 & 08SC577 (½ HOUR)
|08SC559 |))))|08SC559 |
| |))))| |
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Douglas K. Wilson |
|William Destro, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |
| |))))|Pamela A. Dayton |
|v. |))) |Deputy Public Defender |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
|The People of the State of Colorado. | |Attorney General |
| | |Patricia R. Van Horn |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
| | | |
|08SC577 | |08SC577 |
| | | |
|Petitioner: | |For the Petitioner: |
| | |Douglas K. Wilson |
|William Destro, | |Colorado State Public Defender |
| | |Pamela A. Dayton |
|v. | |Deputy Public Defender |
| | | |
|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |
| | |John W. Suthers |
|The People of the State of Colorado. | |Attorney General |
| | |Patricia R. Van Horn |
| | |Assistant Attorney General |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1261 & 03CA1262
Docketed: July 14, 2008 & July 14, 2008
At Issue: April 16, 2009 & April 16, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether a defendant's death before the final resolution of his direct appeal abates ab initio the criminal proceedings against him
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 11, 2009 EN BANC
Bailiff: Arthur Ortegon/Jason Langley
08SA354 (1 HOUR)
|Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Pagosa Area Water |))))|For the Opposer-Appellant: |
|and Sanitation District and the San Juan Water Conservancy District |))))|Andrew Peternell |
|in the San Juan River and Its Tributaries in Archuleta County. |))))|Trout Unlimited |
| |))))| |
|Applicants-Appellees: |))))|For the Applicants-Appellees: |
| |))))|Evan D. Ela |
|Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District and San Juan Water |))))|Collins Cockrel & Cole |
|Conservancy District, |) | |
| | |All Amici filed a joint brief: |
|v. | | |
| | |For Amici Curiae Ute Water Conservancy District: |
|Opposer-Appellant: | |Mark A. Hermundstad |
| | |Kirsten M. Kurath |
|Trout Unlimited, | |Williams, Turner & Holmes, P.C |
| | | |
|and | |For Amici Curiae City of Colorado Springs and Southwestern Water |
| | |Conservation District: |
|Appellee pursuant to CAR 1(e)s: | |David W. Robbins |
| | |Jennifer H. Hunt |
|Dick Wolfe, State Engineer and Rege Leach, Division 7 Water Engineer.| |Hill & Robbins, P.C. |
| | | |
| | |For Amici Curiae City and County of Denver, acting by and through|
| | |its Board of Water Commissioners: |
| | |Patricia L. Wells |
| | |General Counsel |
| | |Casey S. Funk |
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 7, 04CW85
Docketed: October 27, 2008
At Issue: April 3, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether applicants demonstrated the 50-year water rights planning horizon adopted by the water court to be reasonable.
Whether applicants substantiated population projections, based on a normal rate of growth, for the 50-year planning period.
Whether applicants demonstrated that the decreed amounts of water are reasonably necessary to serve projected population through the planning period.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
08SC308 (1 HOUR)
|Petitioner: |))))|For the Petitioner: |
| |))))|Roger Moore |
|American Family Mutual Insurance Company, |) |Dwight L. Pringle |
| | |Law Offices of Roger Moore |
|v. | | |
| | |For the Respondents: |
|Respondents: | |Craig S. Nuss |
| | |William P. Boyle |
|Ed Dewitt and Sarah Elaine Dewitt. | |Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C. |
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA2687
Docketed: April 17, 2008
At Issue: February 26, 2009
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals ruled contrary to this Court’s holding that insurance subrogation is an equitable action when it upheld the trial court’s submission of the case, in which liability was not an issue, to a jury.
Whether the court of appeals disregarded the decisions of this Court concerning the integrity of the attorney-client relationship when it upheld the trial court’s decision to allow Respondents to call Petitioner’s former counsel as a witness against Petitioner at trial over Petitioner’s objection.
______________________________________________________________________________
................
................
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 download
- 2021 2022 school calendar orange county public schools
- 2021 2022 calendar final shelby county schools
- cherry creek school district 2021 2022 school year
- august september october november
- 2020 21 school calendar color final
- 2021 2022 school calendar douglas county school district
- opening closing days of schools
- 2021 2022 calendar
- 33 n zack hinton parkway mcdonough ga 30253
- henry county schools
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