SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



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

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Kate Field/Sara Rundell

09SA269 (1 HOUR)

|Concerning the Application for Water Rights of The City and County of|))))|For the Applicant-Appellee: |

|Broomfield in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder and Weld Counties |))))|Harvey W. Curtis |

| |))))|David L. Kueter |

|Applicant-Appellee: |))))|Sheela S. Stack |

| |))))|Harvey W. Curtis & Associates |

|The City and County of Broomfield, |))))| |

| |))))|For the Opposer-Appellant: |

|v. |))))|John P. Akolt III |

| |))))|John P. Akolt II |

|Opposer-Appellant: | |Law Office of Akolt and Akolt, LLC |

| | | |

|The Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, a Colorado corporation,| |For the Opposer-Appellee Office of the Attorney General: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|Opposers-Appellees: | |Attorney General |

| | |Chad M. Wallace |

|The Brighton Ditch Company, City of Aurora, Central Colorado Water | |Assistant Attorney General |

|Conservancy District, City of Englewood, City of Thornton, City of | |Autumn L. Bernhardt |

|Westminster, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, | |Assistant Attorney General |

|Public Service Company, United Water & Sanitation District, Lupton | | |

|Bottom Ditch Company, Lupton Meadows Ditch, New Coal Ridge Ditch | | |

|Company, New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir, Platte Valley | | |

|Irrigation Company, Pulte Home Corporation-Preble Creek Division, | | |

|South Adams Water & Sanitation District, City of Boulder, and Office | | |

|of the Attorney General, | | |

| | | |

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

| | | |

|James Hall, Division 1 Engineer. | | |

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 05CW290

Docketed: September 16, 2009

At Issue: March 18, 2010 Cont’d to Page 2

Cont’d from Page 1

ISSUE(S):

Whether costs can be assessed under C.R.C.P. 54(d) against a mutual ditch company as a representative of its shareholders, where at least a percentage of the shareholders, themselves, are exempt from assessment of costs.

Whether the assessment of costs in a Water Court proceeding under the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (C.R.S. 37-92-101) [hereafter “1969 Act”] violates Article II, Sections 10 and 24 of the Colorado Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Whether the assessment of costs against a mutual ditch company in a Water Court proceeding under the 1969 Act where costs against the State of Colorado, its officers or agencies are not assessable under C.R.C.P. 54(d) violates the due process and equal protection provisions, Amendment V and Amendment XIV, of the Constitution of the United States, and Article II, Sections 24 and 25 and Article II, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC128 (½ HOUR)

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

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

|Angela Washington, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |

| |) |Todd Johnson |

|v. | |Deputy Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Daniel H. May |

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

| | |Kris Morgan |

| | |Deputy District Attorney |

| | |Deborah F. Pearson |

| | |Deputy District Attorney |

Certiorari to the District Court, El Paso County, 08CV275

Docketed: February 12, 2009

At Issue: February 5, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether a defendant can assert an affirmative defense of self-defense against the specific-intent crime of harassment and, if so, whether the defendant must admit to the specific intent in order to assert self-defense as an affirmative defense.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC2 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|John J. Fleming, Jr. |

|Clubhouse at Fairway Pines, LLC, |))))|Fleming & Stern |

| |))))| |

|v. |))))|For the Respondent: |

| |))))|Thomas C. Bell |

|Respondent: |))))|Michelle M. Meyer |

| |))))|Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP |

|Fairway Pines Estates Owners Association, Inc. |))))| |

| |)) |For Amicus Curiae Community Associations Institute-Rocky Mountain|

| | |Chapter, Community Associations Institute-Southern Colorado |

| | |Chapter, and Community Associations Institute Colorado |

| | |Legislative Action Committee: |

| | |Jerry C. Orten |

| | |Candyce D. Cavanagh |

| | |Christopher C. Hurley |

| | |Orten Cavanagh Richmond & Holmes, LLC |

| | |and |

| | |Jesse Howard Witt |

| | |The Witt Law Firm |

| | |and |

| | |Loura K. Sanchez |

| | |Hindmansanchez P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Divide Golf, LLC: |

| | |John F. Neiley |

| | |Neiley & Alder, Attorneys |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Divide Ranch Defense Fund: |

| | |Davide C. Migliaccio |

| | |and |

| | |JoAnn Schmitz |

| | |The Schmitz Law Firm |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1368

Docketed: January 5, 2009

At Issue: March 17, 2010

Cont’d to Page 5

Cont’d from Page 4

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the defendant did not waive its right to raise the need for indispensable parties by failing to raise the issue in a timely matter.

Whether the court of appeals decision is not in accord with the basic intent of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act., e.g., section 38-33.3-311, CRS.

Whether court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the interests of the homeowners were not adequately represented.

Whether the court of appeals decision that lot owners are indispensable parties is contrary to public policy, unduly chilling the rights of litigants and rendering cases excessively cost prohibitive.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Britta Stunkard/Elias Quinn

09SC195 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Murray Ogborn |

|Nicole Nunn, |))))|Thomas Neville |

| |))))|Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, LLC |

|v. |))))|and |

| |))))|Bradley A. Levin |

|Respondent: |))))|Michael J. Rosenberg |

| | | |

|Mid-Century Insurance Company, a California corporation. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John P. Craver |

| | |John M. Lebsack |

| | |Lyndsay K. Arundel |

| | |White and Steele, P.C. |

| | | |

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

| | |Steven Taffet |

| | |Taffet Law, P.C. |

| | | |

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

| | |Jack D. Robinson |

| | |Spies, Powers & Robinson, P.C. |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae American Insurance Association: |

| | |Alan Epstein |

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

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA954

Docketed: March 9, 2009

At Issue: April 12, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that a Bashor agreement containing a covenant not to execute on the insured’s personal assets, given in exchange for the insured’s assignment of claims against its liability insurer, precludes the insured’s assignee from recovering damages against the insurer on the assigned claims, irrespective of the insurer’s bad faith conduct.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

09SC421 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Jonathan S. Willett |

|Virginia D. Munoz and Joel Munoz, |) | |

| | |For the Respondents: |

|v. | |Jennifer Lynn Peters |

| | |Otis, Coan & Peters, LLC |

|Respondents: | | |

| | | |

|Linda L. Measner and Devon E. Measner. | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA425

Docketed: May 18, 2009

At Issue: March 29, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals properly reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney fees pursuant to section 13-17-102(4), C.R.S. (2008), because the trial court did not use the factors laid out in section 13-17-103(1), C.R.S. (2008), to assess whether attorney fees were warranted.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 8, 2010 3:00 p.m.

EN BANC

09SC916 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Ellen G. Wakeman |

|Jefferson County Board of Equalization, |))))|Jefferson County Attorney |

| |))))|Eric T. Butler |

|v. |))))|Assistant County Attorney |

| |))))| |

|Respondents: |))))|For the Respondent Mark W. Gerganoff: |

| |))))|Mark W. Gerganoff |

|Mark W. Gerganoff, Robin E. McIntosh, and Board of Assessment |))))| |

|Appeals. |)) |For Amicus Curiae City and County of Denver: |

| | |David R. Fine |

| | |City Attorney |

| | |David V. Cooke |

| | |Assistant City Attorney |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Taxpayers Jaki Barry, Jim Butler, Dan Edwards, |

| | |OPLLC, Jamie and Kim McIntosh, Jeff Quinlan, STP, and SH: |

| | |Robert T. Hoban |

| | |Hoban & Feola, LLC |

| |))))| |

| |))))|For Amicus Curiae Arapahoe County Board of Equalization: |

| |))) |Kathryn Schroeder |

| | |County Attorney |

| | |George Rosenberg |

| | |Assistant County Attorney |

| | |Breena N. Meng |

| | |Assistant County Attorney |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae Boulder County Board of Equalization: |

| | |H. Lawrence Hoyt |

| | |County Attorney |

| | |Michael A. Koertje |

| | |Assistant County Attorney |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Cont’d to Page 9 |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |Cont’d from Page 8 |

| | | |

| | | |

| | |For Amicus Curiae The Board of County Commissioners of the County|

| | |of Douglas, State of Colorado: |

| | |Lance J. Ingalls |

| | |County Attorney |

| | |Kelly Dunnaway |

| | |Deputy Douglas County Attorney |

| | |Robert D. Clark |

| | |Senior Assistant County Attorney |

| | |Michelle B. Whisler |

| | |Senior Assistant County Attorney |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2348

Docketed: October 30, 2009

At Issue: April 6, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether section 39-8-109, C.R.S. (2008), requires the Board of Assessment Appeals to award costs to taxpayers whose appeal is sustained in part.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: David Scherr/Margrit Parker

09SA118 (1 HOUR)

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

|Conservancy District in Routt County, Colorado |))))|Robert G. Weiss |

| |))))|Weiss & Van Scoyk, LLP |

|Applicant-Appellant: |))))|and |

| |))))|David C. Hallford |

|Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District, |))) |Scott A. Grosscup |

| | |Balcomb & Green, P.C. |

|v. | | |

| | |For the Opposers-Appellees Dequine Family L.L.C., Flying Diamond |

|Opposers-Appellees: | |Resources, Ltd., Kim Singleton, and James A. Larson: |

| | |Charles B. White |

|Dequine Family L.L.C.; Flying Diamond Resources, Ltd.; Kim Singleton;| |Petros & White |

|James A. Larson; Colorado Water Conservation Board; Dick Wolfe, State| | |

|Engineer; and Erin Light, Division Engineer Water Division 6. | |For the Opposer-Appellees Dick Wolfe, State Engineer; and Erin |

| | |Light, Division Engineer Water Division 6: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |John J. Cyran |

| | |First Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Scott Steinbrecher |

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 6, 03CW53

Docketed: May 15, 2009

At Issue: January 12, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether an appropriation to use water by both direct flow and storage may be confirmed under one water right.

Whether the court erred in considering that the District’s conditional water right would violate the “one-fill” rule.

Whether the court should consider the benefit of this water right on the use of other District water rights when considering if the District has formed a non-speculative intent for the appropriation and can and will develop the conditional right.

Cont’d to Page 10

Cont’d from Page 9

Whether the court erred in concluding that there was no need for an additional direct flow water right from a new source for purposes of hydropower production.

Whether the court erred in concluding that the District had not met its burden of establishing a non-speculative intent for the water right claimed in the application.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC184 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Carol Chambers |

|The People of the State of Colorado, |))) |District Attorney |

| | |David C. Jones |

|v. | |Senior Deputy District Attorney |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |Douglas K. Wilson |

|Ivan Zhuk. | |Colorado State Public Defender |

| | |Rita M. Montoya |

| | |Deputy State Public Defender |

Certiorari to the District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV2724

Docketed: March 5, 2009

At Issue: February 11, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court erred in dismissing as untimely the prosecution’s interlocutory appeal from a county court ruling pursuant to Crim. P. 37.1.

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC189 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Robert R. Duncan |

|Richard W. Bly; Patsy A. Bly; and Bank of the West f/n/a Community |))) |Duncan, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C. |

|First National Bank f/n/a The Bank, N.A.; | | |

| | |For the Respondent: |

|v. | |Geoffrey P. Anderson |

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

|Respondent: | | |

| | | |

|Tamara L. Story. | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA2076

Docketed: March 6, 2009

At Issue: February 12, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Where the Petition in Condemnation did not identify the scope of the condemnor’s uses and purposes and lacked a legal description of the easement being acquired, whether the court of appeals erred in ruling the Petition was adequate.

Where the court of appeals acknowledged “no expert here could find comparable sales of driveway easements,” and where it was undisputed that the Income Method cannot be applied, whether the panel erred in precluding the jury from hearing valuation evidence based on the only remaining appraisal method, the Cost Method, and the cost of constructing the driveway.

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Christie Henke/Alison Flint

09SC70 (1 HOUR)

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

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

|Phillip Effland, |))) |Colorado State Public Defender |

| | |Katherine Brien |

|v. | |Special Deputy Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

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

| | |Rebecca A. Adams |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA1948

Docketed: January 26, 2009

At Issue: March 29, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erroneously confirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suppress his statements because the interrogating officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights or obtain a valid waiver of those rights.

Whether the court of appeals erroneously confirmed the district court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to suppress his statements after petitioner proactively invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to silence and to counsel and the investigating officers told petitioner he was not entitled to legal representation because he was not in custody.

Whether the court of appeals erred in finding the petitioner’s statements voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Whether the court of appeals erred in not finding prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecuting attorney advised the interrogating officers that petitioner was not entitled to counsel, which the officers then told petitioner when he asserted his right to remain silent and to counsel.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

09SC680 (½ HOUR)

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

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

|Ezamika Brown, |))) |Colorado State 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 |

| | |Christopher Y. Bosch |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA209

Docketed: August 10, 2009

At Issue: March 19, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence in the record to support giving the lesser-included offense instruction requested by the defense.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence in the record to support giving the intoxication instruction requested by the defense.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 3:00 p.m.

EN BANC

09SC451 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|T.R. Rice |

|Rocky Mountain Festivals, Inc. d/b/a Colorado Renaissance Festivals, |)) |Astrella & Rice PC |

|Inc., | | |

| | |For the Respondents: |

|v. | |R. Kirk Mueller |

| | |Damian J. Arguello |

|Respondents: | |Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP |

| | | |

|Parsons Corporation and James M. Miller. | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA349

Docketed: May 28, 2009

At Issue: March 16, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether claims based upon the “wrong-of-another” under Elijah v. Fender, 674 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1984) can be pursued only in instances where there is a complete absence of fault on the part of a plaintiff with respect to each and every claim asserted in the prior case.

Whether petitioner was obligated, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, to prove up its damages even though the absence of damages was not one of the issues raised as the basis for the motion.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Andy Lanoha/Ben Figa

09SC456 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|John W. Suthers |

|Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, an agency of the |))))|Attorney General |

|State of Colorado, as successor in interest to the Colorado |))))|Daniel Domenico |

|Department of Highways, |))))|Solicitor General |

| | |Larry D. Tannenbaum |

|v. | |Senior Assistant Attorney General |

| | |Eric T. Meyer |

|Respondents: | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | | |

|Gypsum Ranch Co., LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Antero | |For Respondent Gypsum Ranch Co. LLC: |

|Resources II Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business in | |Edward Mulhall, Jr. |

|Colorado as Antero Resources Corporation; and Board of County | |Scott Grosscup |

|Commissioners of the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, a | |Balcomb & Green, P.C. |

|quasi-municipal corporation. | | |

| | |For Respondent Antero Resources II Corporation: |

| | |David R. Little |

| | |Bjork Lindley Little PC |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA399

Docketed: May 29, 2009

At Issue: March 9, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that CDOT does not have the authority to take title to the subsurface mineral rights in condemnation proceedings and settlements.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC322 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Susan L. Foreman |

|Felix Montes-Rodriguez, |) | |

| | |For the Respondent: |

|v. | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

|Respondent: | |Alexander C. Reinhardt |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

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

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA578

Docketed: April 20, 2009

At Issue: March 8, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals’ opinion erred in its interpretation of the criminal impersonation statute, and its terms “false or fictitious identity or capacity,” thus conflicting with the applicable decisions of this court and of other divisions of the court of appeals.

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC961 (½ HOUR)

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

| |))))|Jonathan D. Reppucci |

|Charity Lehnert, |) |Reppucci Law Firm, P.C. |

| | | |

|v. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

|Respondent: | |Attorney General |

| | |Roger G. Billotte |

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

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA2186

Docketed: November 24, 2008

At Issue: March 18, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the thirty-year enhanced and aggravated range sentence imposed pursuant to section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. (2008) for Petitioner’s attempted murder conviction is illegal.

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Sam Bacon/Andy Rottman

09SC598 (1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|John D. Fognani |

|Terri Crandall and Joann Hubbard, individually and on behalf of all |))))|Fritz W. Ganz |

|others similarly situated, |) |Tiffany L. Grant |

| | |Fognani & Faught, PLLC |

|v. | | |

| | |For the Respondent: |

|Respondent: | |Chris A. Mattison |

| | |Andrew D. Ringel |

|The City and County of Denver, Colorado d/b/a The Denver | |Andrew J. Carafelli |

|International Airport, a Colorado political subdivision. | |Hall & Evans, L.L.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA979

Docketed: July 13, 2009

At Issue: March 8, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether under C.R.S. § 13-17-201 attorneys’ fees and costs for time spent on work ultimately useful in a companion or overlapping case should be excluded from the award.

Whether the court of appeals erred in shifting to Petitioners the burden of differentiating between recoverable and non-recoverable attorneys’ fees and costs.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

10SA20 (1 HOUR)

|In Re |))))|For the Petitioner (Defendant): |

| |))))|David D. Karr |

|Plaintiff: |))) |Elizabeth C. Moran |

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

|Phillip Garrigan, | | |

| | |For the Respondent (Plaintiff): |

|v. | |J. Keith Killian |

| | |Damon J. Davis |

|Defendant: | |Cheryl A. Martin |

| | |Killian & Davis, P.C. |

|Philip J. Bowen, M.D. | | |

Original Proceeding, District Court, Mesa County, 06CV399

Docketed: January 19, 2010

At Issue: April 14, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court erred in granting in part plaintiffs Phillip Garrigan’s Motion for Discovery Violation Sanctions and striking the proposed trial testimony of Dr. Bowen’s key expert witness, Lorri A. Lee, M.D.

______________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 4:00 p.m.

Public Hearing: Thursday, June 10, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Lynn Kubiak

Proposed Changes to Colo.RPC 1.15 (Safekeeping Property)

Colo.RPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor)

Colo.RPC 1.16A (Client File Retention)

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download