1. No category

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers
9:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2013SA304 (1 HOUR)
Concerning the Protest of Tom McKenna and McKenna
Ranch to the Revised Abandonment List of Water Rights
in Water Division No. 2
For the Applicant-Appellant Tom McKenna:
David Shohet
FELT, MONSON & CULICHIA, LLC
Applicants-Appellants:
For the Opposer-Appellee Steve Witte, as Division
Engineer for Water Division 2:
Katherine Ryan, Assistant Attorney
General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Tom McKenna and McKenna Ranch,
v.
Opposer-Appellee:
Steve Witte, as Division Engineer for Water Division 2.
Appeal from the District Court, , 2012CW52
Docketed: November 19, 2013
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the water court erred by concluding that the Division Engineer for Water Division 2 (“Division
Engineer”) complied with C.R.S. § 37-92-401, et.seq., in the abandonment of the Sanchez Ditch.2.
Whether the water court erred by concluding that the Sanchez Ditch was abandoned.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2013SC447 (30 MINUTES)
Petitioner:
Eric Marcus Doyle,
v.
Respondent:
For the Petitioner Eric Marcus Doyle:
Adam Mueller, Deputy State Public Defender
OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
For the Respondent The People of the State of
Colorado:
Jillian Price, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The People of the State of Colorado.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA1786
Docketed: June 19, 2013
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order taking judicial notice under CRE 201.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers
10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
2014SA43 (1 HOUR)
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Dean Craft,
v.
For the Plaintiff-Appellant Dean Craft:
Heather R Hanneman
RECHT KORNFELD, P.C.
and
Scott Robert Larson
SCOTT R LARSON PC
Defendant-Appellee:
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, a foreign
corporation.
For the Defendant-Appellee Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company, a foreign corporation:
John Bolmer
HALL & EVANS, L.L.C.
and
Bethany Culp
Suzanne Jones
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
For Amicus Curiae American Insurance Assoc
Complex Insurance Claim
Joanne Zboyan
SPRINGER AND STEINEBERG, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae COPIC Insurance Compay
Jeffrey Ruebel
Casey Quillen
RUEBEL & QUILLEN, LLC
For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers
Association
Bradley Levin
ROBERTS LEVIN ROSENBERG, PC
For Amicus Curiae United PolicyHolders
James Davis
REED SMITH LLP
Docketed: February 11, 2014
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether Colorado's notice-prejudice rule applies to claims-made liability insurance policies, and if so, whether the rule
applies to both types of notice requirements in those policies.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers
1:30 p.m.
EN BANC
2013SC9 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez,
v.
Respondent:
For the Petitioner Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez:
Jonathan D Rosen
OFFICE OF ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
For the Respondent The People of the State of
Colorado:
Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney General
DEPT. OF LAW, APPELLATE DIVISION
The People of the State of Colorado.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA34
Docketed: January 4, 2013
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether C.R.E. 606(b) bars the admission of juror statements showing evidence of racial bias made during jury
deliberations, and if so, whether the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial nevertheless requires such statements'
admission.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
9:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2014SA12 (1 HOUR)
Opposers-Appellants:
Dick Wolfe, P. E. State Engineer and David L. Nettles, P.
E. Division Engineer, Water Division 1,
v.
For the Opposer-Appellant Dick Wolfe, P. E. State
Engineer and David L. Nettles, P.E. Division Engineer
Water Division 1:
Paul Louis Benington First, Assistant Attorney General
Katherine Abbott Daniels Ryan, Assistant Attorney
General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Applicant-Appellee:
Sedalia Water and Sanitation District.
For the Applicant-Appellee Sedalia Water and
Sanitation District:
John David Buchanan
Timothy Ray Buchanan
BUCHANAN AND SPERLING, P.C
For Amicus Curiae Cache La Poudre Water Users
Association
Daniel Kenneth Brown
FISCHER, BROWN, BARTLETT & GUNN, P.
For Amicus Curiae City of Aurora
Ryan P. McLane
Austin C Hamre
John Marshall Dingess
DUNCAN, OSTRANDER & DINGESS, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae City of Fountain
Cynthia Frazer Covell
Andrea Luise Benson
ALPERSTEIN & COVELL, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae City of Northglenn
William Ross Fischer
Donald Everett Frick
FISCHER, BROWN, BARTLETT & GUNN, P.
For Amicus Curiae City of Thornton
Joanne Herlihy
Margaret Ann Emerich
CITY OF THORNTON
and
David C Taussig
Lindsay B. Masters
Matthew Lake Merrill
WHITE & JANKOWSKI, LLP
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
9:00 a.m.
EN BANC
For Amicus Curiae City of Westminster
Lee H Johnson
Mary Mead Hammond
Mason Hamill Brown
CARLSON, HAMMOND & PADDOCK, LLC
For Amicus Curiae Coors Brewing Company
Stephen Hunter Leonhardt
Margaret Shechter
BURNS FIGA & WILL, PC
and
Samuel D Walker
MOLSON COORS BREWING CO
For Amicus Curiae Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District and Upper Eagle Regional Water
Authority
William Doran Wombacher
Glenn Edward Porzak
Karen Leigh Henderson
PORZAK, BROWNING & BUSHONG, LLP
For Amicus Curiae East Cherry Creek Valley Water
and Sanitation Dist
William B Tourtillott
Susan Michelle Ryan
Brian M Nazarenus
Sheela S Stack
RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE
For Amicus Curiae Greeley Irrigation Company
Gabriella K.F. Stockmayer
Star Lee Waring
DIETZE AND DAVIS, PC
For Amicus Curiae The Consolidated Mutual Water
Company
Evan D Ela
Joseph William Norris
COLLINS CROCKREL & COLE PC
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
9:00 a.m.
EN BANC
For Amicus Curiae Upper South Platte Water
Conservancy District
Madoline Wallace-Gross
Jeffrey J Kahn
LYONS GADDIS KAHN HALL JEFFERS DWOR
For Amicus Curiae Varra Companies
Frederick Anthony Fendel
Matthew Steven Poznanovic
PETROCK & FENDEL, P.C.
Appeal from the District Court, , 2010CW261
Docketed: January 16, 2014
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether, in a third successive change of the Ball Ditch water right, its historical use should be requantified based on the
average annual historical use last quantified by the second change decree and twenty-four years of subsequent nonuse.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2012SC939 (30 MINUTES)
Petitioner:
The People of the State of Colorado,
For the Petitioner The People of the State of
Colorado:
Christine Cates Brady, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
v.
Respondent:
For the Respondent Joseph Phillip Diaz:
Kathy Goudy
LAW OFFICE OF KATHY GOUDY
Joseph Phillip Diaz.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA656
Docketed: November 29, 2012
At Issue: July 15, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that under section 18-3-203(1)(f), C.R.S., mandatory consecutive
sentencing applies only to the sentence defendant was serving at the time of the assault.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
10:30 a.m.
EN BANC
2013SC404 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
Board of County Commissioners of Summit County,
v.
Respondents:
James Hazel and Jason Rodgers.
For the Petitioner Board of County Commissioners
of Summit County:
Josh Adam Marks
Melanie Bailey Lewis
Heidi C Potter
BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP
and
Jeffrey L Huntley County Attorney
SUMMIT COUNTY ATTORNEY
For the Respondent James Hazel and
Jason Rodgers:
Heather S Hodgson
Dennis Boyd Polk
HOLLEY ALBERTSON & POLK PC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers
Association
Matthew W. Hall
Karen Hannah Wheeler
Charles Christopher Hall
LEVY, WHEELER, WATERS, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers
Association
Arash Jahanian
Qusair Mohamedbhai
Austin Murray Cohen
Matthew J. Cron
Siddhartha H. Rathod
RATHOD MOHMEDBHAI LLC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA457
Docketed: June 6, 2013
At Issue: September 11, 2014
ISSUE(S):
[REFRAMED ISSUE 1] Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that under C.R.C.P. 50, a trial court cannot
direct a verdict as to some but not all issues within a single claim against a single defendant.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
1:30 p.m.
EN BANC
2011SC738 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
Glen Robert Worley,
v.
Respondent:
For the Petitioner Glen Robert Worley:
Jason C Middleton
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
For the Respondent The People of the State of
Colorado:
John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The People of the State of Colorado.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2007CA2280
Docketed: October 11, 2011
At Issue: August 19, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erroneously held as a matter of first impression that counsel can waive his client's
Fourteenth Amendment constitutional due process right to receive the statutory tribunal that was due him under Colorado
law?
Whether the court of appeals misapplied Righi v. People, 145 Colo. 457, 359 P.2d 656 (1961), to argue that defense
counsel waived Petitioner's statutory entitlement to three additional peremptory challenges in a capital case, and his
constitutional due process claim of receiving the statutory tribunal that was due to him under Colorado law, by failing to
object to the trial court's circumscribed voir dire procedure?
Whether Petitioner was denied his right to be tried by a statutory tribunal as a result of the trial court's denial of Petitioner's
right to all of his statutorily-allotted peremptory challenges, and whether that deprivation results in automatic reversal?
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Marquez' Chambers
2:30 p.m.
EN BANC
2013SC556 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation,
v.
For the Petitioner Allstate Insurance Company, an
Illinois corporation:
Terence M Ridley
Mark Lyda
Evan B. Stephenson
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP
Respondent:
Medical Lien Management, Inc., a Colorado corporation.
For the Respondent Medical Lien Management, Inc.,
a Colorado corporation:
Zachary Paul Mugge
ROBINSON WATERS & O'DORISIO PC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Civil Justice League
and the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association:
Jeffrey Clay Ruebel
RUEBEL & QUILLEN, LLC
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA691
Docketed: July 18, 2013
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to another division of the court of appeals, that a contract to make
a future assignment is itself a valid assignment.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Thursday, November 6, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers
9:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2014SA38 (1 HOUR)
Concerning the Matter of the Protest of the Jim Hutton
Educational Foundation to Inclusion on the Revised
Abandonment List of Water Rights in Yuma County,
Colorado
Appellants:
Dick Wolfe, P.E. State Engineer; David L Nettles, P.E.
Division Engineer, Water Division 1; and Republican
River Water Conservation District;
v.
Appellee:
The Jim Hutton Educational Foundation.
For the Appellant Dick Wolfe, P.E. State Engineer:
David L Nettles, P.E. Division Engineer, Water
Division 1:
Paul Louis Benington, First Assistant Attorney General
Ema I.g. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
For the Appellant Republican River Water
Conservation District:
David W Robbins
Dennis Michael Montgomery
Andrew J. Rottman
Peter J Ampe
HILL AND ROBBINS, PC
For the Appellee The Jim Hutton Educational
Foundation:
Steven J Bushong
Karen Leigh Henderson
PORZAK, BROWNING & BUSHONG, LLP
Appeal from the District Court, , 2012CW111
Docketed: February 3, 2014
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
Whether the water court erred in finding that the Engineers did not establish the statutory presumption of abandonment for
the Tip Jack Ditch water right despite the water court's own finding that “[t]he evidence is convincing that water was never
diverted into the Tip Jack Ditch from the relocated diversion point” decreed in 1978.
Whether the water court erred in finding that, even if the Engineers had established the presumption of abandonment,
sufficient evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of abandonment for the Tip Jack Ditch water right.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Thursday, November 6, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
2013SC728 (1 HOUR)
Petitioners:
S K Peightal Engineers LTD, a Colorado corporation;
Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical Inc.; Steve Pawlak; and
Daniel E. Hardin;
For the Petitioner S K Peightal Engineers LTD, a
Colorado corporation:
Echo Dawn Ryan
John Robert Riley
Shawn Anthony Eady
MONTGOMERY, LITTLE & SORAN, P.C.
v.
Respondent:
Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company.
For the Petitioner Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical
Inc., Steve Pawlak and Daniel E. Hardin:
Andrew Scott Ford
Daniel Vernon Woodward
CARDI, SCHULTE & FORD, LLC
For the Respondent Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions
V, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company:
Dean S Neuwirth
DEAN NEUWIRTH, P.C.
and
Chad James Schmit
David L Lenyo
Avery Simpson Nelson
GARFIELD & HECHT, PC
For Amicus Curiae American Council of Engineering
Companies of Colorado, the American Institute of
Architects of Colorado, the Structural Engineers
Association of Colorado and the Colorado
Association of Geotechnical Engineers:
Philip B Cardi
CARDI SCHULTE & FORD, LLC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers
Association
Jesse Howard Witt
THE WITT LAW FIRM
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Thursday, November 6, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers
10:00 a.m.
EN BANC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers
Association:
Jeffrey Clay Ruebel
RUEBEL & QUILLEN
and
Gregg S Rich
LAMBDIN & CHANEY, LLP
For Amicus Curiae Independent Bankers of
Colorado
Tracy Anne Davis
John Burrus
BIEGING SHAPIRO & BARBER, LLP
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2013CA519
Docketed: September 12, 2013
At Issue: August 7, 2014
ISSUE(S):
[REFRAMED ISSUE 1] Whether the economic loss rule bars a homeowner's negligence claim against a construction
professional when the owner is a commercial entity rather than a natural homebuyer.
[REFRAMED ISSUE 2] Whether the interrelated contract doctrine as defined in BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d
66 (Colo. 2004), can apply to a wholly-owned subsidiary that did not exist when the initial contracts were drafted but
instead was created after work on the relevant contracts had been completed.
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
Oral Argument: Thursday, November 6, 2014
Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers
1:30 p.m.
EN BANC
2012SC205 (1 HOUR)
Petitioner:
Richard C. LaFond,
v.
Respondent:
For the Petitioner Richard C. LaFond:
Dean S Neuwirth
DEAN NEUWIRTH, P.C.
and
Watson Wheelwright Galleher
Shelley B Don
Mark Enger Saliman
SHELLEY B DON PC
Charlotte N. Sweeney.
For the Respondent Charlotte N. Sweeney:
Jennifer Michelle Osgood
BURNS FIGA & WILL, P.C.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010CA2005
Docketed: March 23, 2012
At Issue: September 8, 2014
ISSUE(S):
If the contingent fee is an asset of the dissolved firm, whether the new firm completing the work should receive
compensation for the reasonable value of its post-dissolution work in successfully completing the case.
Whether the court of appeals' holding that a contingent fee earned by an attorney who previously represented the client in
a dissolved law firm is an asset of the dissolved firm is inconsistent with Colorado law limiting discharged contingency fee
attorneys to a quantum meruit recovery in order to promote the public policy of protecting the client's unfettered right to be
represented by counsel of his own choice.