SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO



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

Oral Argument: January 19, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Sam Bacon/Andy Rottman

08SC1026 ( 1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Timothy J. Flanagan |

|Debora M. Palizzi; Gloria A. Bennett; and Palizzi & Son, Inc., a |))))|Katherine T. Eubank |

|Colorado corporation; |))))|Fowler Schimberg & Flanagan P.C. |

| |))))| |

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

| |)) |Patrick Wilson |

|Respondent: | |Special Counsel, City of Brighton |

| | |Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & |

|City of Brighton, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. | |Renaud LLP |

| | |and |

| | |Margaret R. Brubaker |

| | |City Attorney, City of Brighton |

| | |Mehaffy Brubaker & Ernst LLC |

| | | |

| | |Amicus Curiae for Colorado Municipal League: |

| | |Erin E. Goff |

| | |Colorado Municipal League |

| | | |

| | |Amicus Curiae for the Colorado Department of Transportation: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Megan Paris Rundlet |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1343

Docketed: December 15, 2008

At Issue: December 21, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that, where dedication is required, evidence valuing the portion that would be dedicated as part of the whole parcel in accordance with the parcel’s potential future use as commercial property is inadmissible.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: January 19, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC783 ( 1 HOUR)

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

| |))))|Douglas W. Brown |

|Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, by assignee, Ann W. Kopfman, |))))|David C. Walker |

| |))) |Brown, Berardini & Dunning, P.C. |

|v. | |and |

| | |James M. Croshal |

|Respondents: | |James M. Croshal, Attorney at Law |

| | | |

|William Lynn Kopfman and Christine E. Kopfman. | |For the Respondents: |

| | |James K. Lester |

| | |Lester, Sigmond, Rooney & Schwiesow |

| | |and |

| | |Mark L. Fulford |

| | |Stephen A. Hess |

| | |Sherman & Howard L.L.C. |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1059

Docketed: October 3, 2008

At Issue: October 20, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a judgment creditor who has domesticated a foreign judgment and established a judgment lien on Colorado real property under section 13-52-102, C.R.S., (2008), must revive that judgment in the foreign court, re-domesticate that judgment, and record a new transcript of judgment issued by a Colorado court.

Whether the court of appeals erred in adopting a strict compliance standard for Colorado’s judgment lien and recording statutes and should have instead adopted a substantial compliance standard.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: January 20, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Andra Zeppelin/Brock Swanson

08SC756 ( 1 HOUR)

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

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

|Jose Pineda, |))) |Colorado State Public Defender |

| | |Nathaniel E. Deakins |

|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | | |

|Respondent: | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

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

| | |Elizabeth F. Rohrbough |

| | |Senior Assistant Attorney General |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA157

Docketed: September 19, 2008

At Issue: December 16, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether, in light of the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542 (U.S. April 21, 2009), the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress contraband found in Petitioner’s vehicle during a warrantless search incident to arrest conducted while Petitioner was handcuffed and secured in a police cruiser.

______________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: January 20, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC171 ( 1/2 HOUR)

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

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

|Jaime J. Perez, |))))|Colorado State Public Defender |

| |) |Katherine Brien |

|v. | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | |Ned R. Jaeckle |

|Respondent: | |Deputy State Public Defender |

| | | |

|The People of the State of Colorado. | |For the Respondent: |

| | |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| | |Rebecca A. Adams |

| | |Assistant Attorney General |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1746

Docketed: March 3, 2009

At Issue: October 9, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court committed reversible error and violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search and seizure, and whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction.

______________________________________________________________________________

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

Oral Argument: January 21, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Kate Field/Sara Rundell

08SC639 ( 1 HOUR)

|Petitioners/Cross-Respondents: |))))|For the Petitioners/Cross-Respondents: |

| |))))|Edward T. Lyons Jr. |

|Cash Advance and Preferred Cash Loans, |))))|Thomas J. Burke Jr. |

| |))))|Jones & Keller, P.C. |

|v. |))))|and |

| |))))|Conly J. Schulte |

|Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: |))))|Shilee T. Mullin |

| |))))|Frederick & Peebles, LLP |

|State of Colorado, ex. rel. John W. Suthers, Attorney General and |))))| |

|Laura E. Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code. |))) |For the Respondents/Cross-Petitioners: |

| |) |John W. Suthers |

| | |Attorney General |

| |))))|Daniel D. Domenico |

| |))))|Solicitor General |

| |))))|Jan M. Zavislan |

| |))))|Deputy Attorney General |

| |))))|Paul Chessin |

| |))))|Senior Assistant Attorney General |

| |) | |

| | |(filed a joint brief) |

| | |For Amicus Curiae the Colorado Indian Bar Association: |

| | |Jennifer H. Weddle |

| | |Greenberg Traurig LLP |

| | |and |

| | |For Amicus Curiae the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe: |

| | |Peter J. Ortego |

| | |Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe |

| | |and |

| | |For Amicus Curiae the University of Colorado School of Law |

| | |American Indian Law Clinic: |

| | |Jill E. Tompkins |

| | |American Indian Law Clinic |

| | |University of Colorado School of Law |

| | |and |

| | |For Amicus Curiae the American Indian Law Center, Inc. |

| | |Helen Padilla |

| | |American Indian Law Center, Inc. |

| | |cont’d on next page |

| | |08SC639 |

| | |cont’d from previous page |

| | | |

| | |Amicus Curiae for AARP, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer |

| | |Federation of America, National Association of Consumer |

| | |Advocates, and National Consumer Law Center: |

| | |Rick Wynkoop |

| | |Wynkoop & Thomas P.C. |

| | | |

| | |Amicus Curiae for the states of Iowa, Arkansas, New Mexico, |

| | |Connecticut, Nebraska, Florida, Ohio, Idaho, South Dakota, |

| | |Mississippi, Utah and National Association of Consumer Credit |

| | |Administrators: |

| | |Thomas J. Miller |

| | |Iowa Attorney General |

| | |Jessica J. Whitney |

| | |Assistant Attorney General and |

| | |Deputy Administrator of the Iowa Consumer Credit Code |

| | | |

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2007CA582

Docketed: August 11, 2008

At Issue: December 18, 2009

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding petitioners do not have tribal sovereign immunity from Colorado trial court orders compelling them to produce information regarding their eligibility for tribal sovereign immunity.

Whether the court of appeals contravened Congress’s plenary power over Indian tribes by implementing its own test to determine if a tribe’s commercial enterprise is sufficiently connected to the tribe such that the enterprise is protected by tribal sovereign immunity.

Whether the court of appeals erred by stating that tribal officers are not protected by tribal sovereign immunity when acting outside state authority.

Whether the court of appeals erred by stating petitioners may have waived sovereign immunity against Colorado’s enforcement actions by including arbitration clauses in loan agreements with Colorado consumers.

cont’d on next page

08SC639

cont’d from previous page

Whether the court of appeals erred in reaching the question of sovereign immunity in an investigative subpoena enforcement proceeding.

Whether the court of appeals erred in allocating the burden of proof to the state when sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense, not a challenge to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding the state’s burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence” when the burden of proof in an investigative subpoena enforcement proceeding is “cause to believe.”

_____________________________________________________________________________

Oral Argument: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SA75 ( 1 HOUR)

|Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Farmers Reservoir and |))))|For the Opposer-Appellant City of Englewood: |

|Irrigation Company; Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Company; |))))|David G. Hill |

|Henrylyn Irrigation District; United Water and Sanitation District; |))))|Jon N. Banashek |

|and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District in Adams, |))))|Heidi C. Potter |

|Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, and Weld Counties. |))))|Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP |

| |))))| |

|Opposer-Appellant: |))))|For Opposer-Appellee, the City and County of Denver: |

| |))))|Patricia L. Wells |

|City of Englewood, |))))|Casey S. Funk |

| |))))|Daniel J. Arnold |

|v. |))))|Michael Walker |

| |) |Denver Water Board |

|Applicants-Appellees: |))))| |

| |))))| |

|Burlington Ditch, Res. & Land Co.; Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation |))))| |

|Co.; United Water & Sanitation District; Henrylyn Irrigation |))))| |

|District; and East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District; |))))| |

| | | |

|and | | |

| | | |

|Opposers-Appellees: | | |

| | | |

|Metro Wastewater Reclamation District; Public Service Company of | | |

|Colorado; Town of Lochbuie; Platte Valley Irrigation Co.; City of | | |

|Aurora; Golf Course Heritage Todd Creek; Todd Creek Farms Metro | | |

|District; Centennial Water & Sanitation District; City of Boulder; | | |

|Harmony Ditch Company; Irrigationists' Association; City of Thornton;| | |

|State Board of Land Commissioners; Colorado Division of Wildlife; | | |

|City of Blackhawk; City and County of Broomfield; City and County of | | |

|Denver Water Board; City of Brighton; Lower Latham Reservoir Company;| | |

|Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc.; Albert Frei & Sons, Inc.; Henderson | | |

|Aggregage Ltd; HP Farms, Inc.; PV Water Holdings, LLC; Adams County | | |

|Board of Commissioners; Riverside Irrigation District; Riverside Land| | |

|Co.; Brighton Ditch Company; Parker Water and Sanitation District; | | |

|Platte Valley Irrigating & Milling Co.; Central Colorado Water | | |

|Conservancy District; South Adams County Water & Sanitation District;| | |

|Rangeview Metropolitan District; Equus Farms Inc.; State Water | | |

|Engineer; Fulton Irrigation Ditch Co.; City of Greeley; Northern | | |

|Colorado Water Conservancy District; Bijou Irrigation Company; Bijou | | |

|Irrigation District; City of Commerce City; David Dechant; | | |

|Consolidated Ditches Company of District No. 2; City of Sterling; and| | |

|Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater; | |cont’d on next page |

| | | |

|Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e): | |09SA75 |

| | |cont’d from previous page |

|James Hall, Division Engineer for Water Division No. 1. | | |

Appeal from District Court, Water Division 1, 04CW362, 02CW403, and 02CW105

Docketed: April 1, 2009

At Issue: November 5, 2009

ISSUE(S):

A. Did the Water Court err by interpreting a settlement agreement to be a lawful “no-call”

agreement where such agreement:

1. Enables the Beneficiary to gain on average approximately 7,400 acre-feet in gross diversions from an over-appropriated stream without replacement of depletions while the purportedly subordinated right suffers no diminution of its diversions because it remains the most senior storage right on the river;

2. Is designed to benefit only certain upstream rights and is, therefore, a selective subordination, which is void because it is contrary to public policy; and

3. Violates the one-fill rule on its face and in actual operation?

B. In regard to proof of injury as a result of the settlement agreement, did the water court err by:

1. Prohibiting the party claiming injury from relying on the presumption of injury on an over-appropriated stream, or providing such injury at trial and ignoring other evidence of injury; and

2. Determining that a stipulation at trial protected junior appropriators from injury?

__________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download