SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 10:00 a.m. … Justice Hood's Chambers 2013SC838 ... SUPREME COURT,...

10:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers

2013SC838 (30 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Reginald Porter.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Donna Skinner Reed1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYandChristine Cates BradyOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

For the Respondent Reginald Porter:Robert P BorquezBORQUEZ LAW OFFICE

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA459Docketed: October 21, 2013At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

Whether double jeopardy bars a new habitual criminal sentencing hearing when the trial court, prior to the People's presentation of any habitual criminal count evidence, erroneously granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the habitual counts.

10:30 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers

2013SC545 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Barbara Jordan,

v.

Respondent:

Panorama Orthopedics Spine Center PC.

For the Petitioner Barbara Jordan:Nelson Patrick BoyleDiane Vaksdal SmithBrian Keith MatiseBURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH, ET ALandMarc Louis SchattenSCHATTEN LAW FIRMandSusan Morath HornerSUSAN MORATH HORNER, P.C.

For the Respondent Panorama Orthopedics Spine Center PC:Alan EpsteinHALL & EVANS LLCandMichael Lewis AdamsRAY LEGO & ASSOCIATES

For Amici Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association and National Federation of Independent Business:Forrest Vincent PleskoTHOMAS POLLART & MILLER LLC For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers AssociationMichael Douglass-HarrisLAW OFFICES OF DIANNE SAWAYA, LLCandThomas Dean NevilleOGBORN MIHM, LLP

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA451Docketed: July 16, 2013At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

[Reframed Issue 1]: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Jordan's verdict on the grounds that Panorama was not a 'landowner' within the contemplation of the Premises Liability Act.

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers

2014SA84 (1 HOUR)

Plaintiff-Appellee:

Stephen Brett Ryals,

v.

Defendant-Appellant:

City of Englewood.

For the Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen Brett Ryals:Mark SilversteinSara Rich NeelAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLO.andDaniel David WilliamsShelby L. MyersJennifer L SullivanHetal J. DoshiFAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP

For the Defendant-Appellant City of Englewood:Gillian M. FahlsingThomas Sullivan RiceSENTER GOLDFARB & RICE, L.L.C.

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League:Rachel Lee AllenCOLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE

Docketed: March 24, 2014At Issue: October 14, 2014

b000ctr

Text Box

ISSUE(S): Is City of Englewood Ordinance 34 preempted by Colorado law?

b000ctr

Text Box

2:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers

2013SA336 (1 HOUR)

Plaintiff-Appellee:

Randal Ankeney,

v.

Defendants-Appellants:

Rick Raemisch, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections and Rae Timme, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility.

For the Plaintiff-Appellee Randal Ankeney:Danielle Cheree JefferisDavid Arthur LaneKILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLPandMarc B TullMARC B. TULL, ATTORNEY AT LAW

For the Defendant-Appellants Rick Raemisch, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections and Rae Timme, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility:James Xavier Quinn, First Assistant Attorney GeneralJacob Dorminy Massee, Assistant Attorney GeneralOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Appeal from the District Court, Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA1930Docketed: December 24, 2013At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Whether the court of appeals and district court erred in concluding that good time credits apply to an inmate's discharge date thus releasing an inmate after service of half of the imposed sentence and eliminating discretionary parole. Whether the district court erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to discharge Ankeney's three year mandatory parole after two months when the Parole Board was not a party to the proceedings.

b000ctr

Line

b000ctr

Text Box

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers

2012SC605 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:


v.

Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:

Michael Johnson.

For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:John Jacob Fuerst, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Michael Johnson:Adam Neil Mueller, Deputy Public DefenderOffice of the Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA2203Docketed: August 14, 2012At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

Whether section 18-1-409(3) applies to a defendant who appeals the judgment of conviction without also appealing the propriety of the sentence.

Whether the court of appeals erred in applying a presumption of vindictiveness and vacating the new sentence because the petitioner/cross-respondent could not provide new information obtained after the original sentence.

Whether the district court exceeded its authority under section 18-1-409(3) because at resentencing there were no new matters of aggravation in addition to those known at the time of resentencing.

Whether the court of appeals erred in declining to apply well settled law because this law was brought to the court's attention for the first time in a petition for rehearing.


2012SC820 (30 MINUTES)

Petitioner:


v.

Respondent:

Kenneth Leon Childress.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

For the Respondent Kenneth Leon Childress:Elizabeth F Griffin, Deputy Public DefenderOffice of the Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2008CA2329Docketed: October 22, 2012At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding "as a matter of first impression in Colorado, that complicitor liability does not apply to the strict liability crime of vehicular assault (DUI) because the crime does not require a culpable mental state."


2013SA330 (1 HOUR)

Concerning the Application for Water Rights for Cherokee Metropolitan District in El Paso County, Colorado

Opposer-Appellant:

Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management Districrt,

v.

Applicant-Appellee:

Cherokee Metropolitan District,

and

Intervenor Appellee/Cross Appellant:

Meridian Service Metropolitan District,

and

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

Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2 and Dick Wolfe, State Engineer.

For the Opposer-Appellant Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management Districrt:April Hendricks KillcreasLisa M ThompsonDouglas M SinorPeggy E MontanoTROUT,RALEY,MONTANO,WITWER&FREEMAN

For the Applicant-Appellee Cherokee Metropolitan District:Heather Eileen JoyceJACKSON KELLY, PLLCandKevin Francis DonovanLAW OFFICE OF KEVIN DONOVAN, LLCandPeter Charles JohnsonPC JOHNSON ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLCandGregory Russell PicheSINGULARITY LEGAL, PLLC

For the Intervenor Appellee/Cross Appellant Meridian Service Metropolitan District:Wayne Berend SchroederW. B. SCHROEDER LAW OFFICE, LLC

For the Appellees Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e) Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2 and Dick Wolfe, State Engineer:Jennifer Lyn MelePatrick E KowaleskiOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Appeal from the District Court, , 1998CW80Docketed: December 18, 2013At Issue: October 14, 2014

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

Appeal from the District Court, 1998CW80 Docketed: December 18, 2013 At Issue: October 14, 2014 ISSUE(S): Whether the water court erred by concluding that the 1999 Stipulation entered in Case No. 1998CW80 does not prohibit Cherokee Metropolitan District (“Cherokee”) or Meridian Metropolitan Service District (“Meridian”) from claiming wastewater return flows from Cherokee's treatment facility as credits for their pending Replacement Plan. Whether the water court erred by concluding that “the IGA does not violate the 1999 Stipulation” and that “the 1999 Stipulation was not binding upon Meridian.” Whether the water court erred by concluding that silence in the Water Court Decree beyond the term recharge affords Cherokee the right to reuse and recapture water brought back into the basin for a second use as replacement credit. Whether the water court erred by awarding attorney fees and costs to Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District (UBS) to sanction Meridian: (a) for challenging the water court's jurisdiction in 2009 and 2013 to enjoin the Commission's adjudication of the replacement plan, (b) for moving to vacate a 2009 preliminary injunction enjoining the Commission's pending adjudication of the replacement plan, and (c) for moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction following the remand.

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers

2013SC233 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

Taxpayers for Public Education, Cindra S. Barnard, Marson S. Bernard, James Larue, Suzanne T. Larue, Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman, Rev. Malcolm Himschoot, Kevin Leung, Christian Moreau, Maritza Carrera, and Susan McMahon,

v.

Respondents:

Douglas County School District, Douglas County Board of Education, Colorado State Board of Education, and Colorado Department of Education,

and

Intervenors-Respondents:

Florence Doyle; Derrick Doyle, on their own behalf and as next friends of their Children A.D. and D.D.; Diana Oakley; Mark Oakley, on their own behalf and as next friends of their child, N.O.; Jeanette Strohm-Anderson; and Mark Anderson, on their own behalf and as next friends of their child, M.A..

For the Petitioners Taxpayers for Public Education, Cindra S. Barnard, Marson S. Bernard, Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman, Rev. Malcolm Himschoot:Caroline Grummon LeeMichael S McCarthyColin C DeihlBruce JonesFAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

For the Petitioner James Larue and Suzanne T. Larue:Timothy R MacdonaldMatthew J DouglasMichelle K. AlbertARNOLD & PORTER, LLP

For the Petitioners Kevin Leung, Christian Moreau,Maritza Carrera, and Susan McMahon:Sara Rich NeelMark SilversteinAMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLO.andTimothy R MacdonaldMatthew J DouglasMichelle K. AlbertARNOLD & PORTER, LLP

For the Respondents Douglas County School District,and Douglas County Board of Education:David Martin Hyams

Eric V Hall James M Lyons LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER, LLP


For the Respondents Colorado State Board of Education and Colorado Department of Education:Michael Lee Francisco Assistant Solicitor GeneralJohn William Suthers Attorney GeneralNicholas G Stancil Assistant Attorney GeneralAntony B Dyl Assistant Attorney GeneralCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW

For the Intervenor-Respondents Florence Doyle andDerrick Doyle, on their own behalf and as next friends of their Children A.D. and D.D.; Diana Oakleyand Mark Oakley, on their own behalf and as next friends of their child, N.O.; and Jeanette Strohm-Anderson and Mark Anderson, on their own behalf and as next friends of their child, M.A.:Michael E BindasTimothy D Keller William H MellorRichard D Komer INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICEandRaymond L GiffordWILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP

For or Amici Curiae American Federation of Teachers and The Education Law Center: Kathleen Joan GebhardtElizabeth Leigh HarrisLAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH L. HARRIS,andMatthew WaringRichard KatskeeAndrew FreyMAYER BROWN, LLP

For Amici Curiae Anti Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Disciples Justice Action Network, Equal Partners In Faith, Hadassah the Womens Zionist Org. of America, Inc., Hindu American Foundation, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Union for Reform Judaism, and Women of Reform Judaism:Richard Katskee Matthew WaringAndrew FreyMAYER BROWN, LLPandCraig Ruvel May WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP

b000ctr

Text Box

For Amici Curiae Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Independence Institute: David B Kopel INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE


For Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of School Boards: Kathleen Anne Sullivan COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS For Amici Curiae Colorado Education Association and National Education Association: Andrew Frey Richard Katskee Matthew Waring MAYER BROWN, LLP and Mark Gary GrueskinRECHT KORNFELD, PC For Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation: Joshua P. Thompson PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION and Ryan J. Klein SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. For Amici Curiae Association of Christian Schools International, Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, Colorado Christian University, and Council for Christian Colleges & Universities:Stuart J Lark BRYAN CAVE

b000ctr

Text Box

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA1856 Docketed: April 11, 2013 At Issue: October 14, 2014 ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

[REFRAMED ISSUE] Whether the court of appeals erred by restricting Colorado's standing doctrine when it held that the Public School Finance Act of 1994's (“the Act”) mere grant of authority to the State Board to issue rules and regulations necessarily deprives the plaintiffs of standing and precludes any private action to enjoin the Douglas County School District (“the District”) from violating the Act. [REFRAMED ISSUE] Whether the Choice Scholarship Program violates the Act by including 500 Program students “enrolled” in an illusory Charter School who actually attend private schools in the District and elsewhere in the District's student count for funding. [REFRAMED ISSUE] Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the Choice Scholarship Program is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality under Article IX, Section 3, that can only be rebutted by proof of unconstitutionality “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and therefore in concluding that fund monies were not spent on the Choice Scholarship Program, notwithstanding the trial court's factual finding to the contrary. Whether the Choice Scholarship Program violates Article IX, Section 7, of the Colorado Constitution by diverting state educational funds intended for Douglas County public school students to private elementary and secondary schools controlled by churches and religious organizations. Whether the Choice Scholarship Program violates the compelled-support and compelled-attendance clauses of Article II, Section 4, of the Colorado Constitution by directing taxpayer funds to churches and religious organizations, and by compelling students enrolled in a public charter school to attend religious services. Whether the Choice Scholarship Program violates Article IX, Section 8, of the Colorado Constitution by requiring students who are enrolled in a public charter school, and counted by Douglas County as public school students, to be taught religious tenets, submit to religious admission tests, and attend religious services.

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers

2013SC576 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

Antero Resources Corporation, Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, Calfrac Well Services Corporation, and Frontier Drilling LLC,

v.

Respondents:

William G. Strudley, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of William Strudley and Charles Strudley, both minors and Beth E. Strudley, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of William Strudley and Charles Strudley, both minors.

For the Petitioners Antero Resources Corporationand Antero Resources Piceance Corporation:Daniel John DunnAndrew Christopher LillieDavid A. DemarcoCatherine E. Stetson HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLPandMarie YeatesSandra G. RodriguezRobert M Schick James D. Thompson elVINSON & ELKINS, LLP

For the Petitioner Calfrac Well Services Corporation:Shannon Wells StevensonGail Leslie WurtzlerDAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP

For the Petitioner Frontier Drilling LLC:Matthew B DillmanBURNS FIGA & WILL PCandSarah Margaret ShechterBURNS FIGA & WILL, PC

b000ctr

Text Box


For the Respondents William G. Strudley, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of William Strudley and Charles Strudley, both minors and Beth E. Strudley, individually and as the parent and natural guardian of William Strudley and Charles Strudley, both minors:Corey Thomas ZurbuchFRASCONA, JOINER, GOODMAN AND GREENandMarc Jay Bern Out of State CounselNAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOC.andPeter W ThomasPRAXIDICE

For Amici Curiae American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Metals Service Center Institute, National Association of Manufacturers:Terry CipolettiFENNEMORE CRAIG PCandRichard FaulkHOLLINGSWORTH, LLP For Amicus Curiae American Petroleum Institute:Jared R. Butcher Bennett Evan CooperMark P. FitzsimmonsSTEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP For Amici Curiae American Tort Reform Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc.,Colorado Civil Justice League, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce:Jessica Elise YatesLee Allen MickusSNELL & WILMER, LLP


For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association:Casey A QuillenJeffrey Clay RuebelRUEBEL & QUILLEN, LLC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Petroleum Association:Harriet Ann McConnellGregory Rudolf TanChristopher John NeumannGREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:David A KlibanerKLIBANER LAW FIRM, PC

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CV2218 Docketed: July 26, 2013 At Issue: October 14, 2014 ISSUE(S): Whether, if such modified case management orders are not prohibited as a matter of law, the district court in this case acted within its discretion in entering and enforcing such an order. Whether a district court is barred as a matter of law from entering a modified case management order requiring plaintiffs to produce evidence essential to their claims after initial disclosures but before further discovery.

b000ctr

Line


2012SC1005 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:


v.

Respondent:

Gary Graves.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Cameron M. Munier Deputy District Attorney17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

For the Respondent Gary Graves:Alison Lee RuttenbergALISON RUTTENBERG

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar:Tara Nicole JorfaldAntony Mark NobleTHE NOBLE LAW FIRM, LLC

Certiorari to the District Court, Adams County, 2012CV839Docketed: December 20, 2012At Issue: September 8, 2014

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court erred when it concluded that subsection (1)(d) of C.R.S. section 18-7-301, the Public Indecency statute, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and affirmed the county court's dismissal of that charge as unconstitutional.

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 EN BANCBailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers

2014SA249 (1 HOUR)

Plaintiffs-Appellees:

Lawrence W Williamson, JR, Esq; Donald Drew Moore, Esq; and Morgan Drexen, Inc, a California Corporation;

v.

Defendant-Appellee:

Walter Joseph Ledda,

and

Defendants-Appellants:

John W. Suthers, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado and Julie Ann Meade, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Debt-Management Services Act.

For the Plaintiffs-Appellees Lawrence W Williamson, JR, Esq., and Donald Drew Moore, Esq.:Karl Lee SchockBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLPandStephen D GurrBRYAN CAVE LLP

For the Plaintiff-Appellee Morgan Drexen, Inc, a California Corporation and Defendant-Appellee Walter Joseph Ledda:Jason R DunnKarl Lee SchockBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP

For the Defendants-Appellants John W. Suthers, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado and Julie Ann Meade, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Debt-Management Services Act:Michael Lee Francisco Assistant, Solicitor GeneralJeanine M Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Appeal from the District Court, Denver District Court, 2011CV7027 Docketed: August 14, 2014 At Issue: October 14, 2014 ISSUE(S): Did the trial court err in concluding that Morgan Drexen was exempt from the requirements of the Original DMSA, under the “legal services” exception to the definition of debt-management services? Did the trial court err in determining that Morgan Drexen is acting under the supervision of lawyers? Did the trial court err in concluding that the Amended DMSA violates Article III of the Colorado Constitution, the separation-of-powers doctrine? Did the trial court err in concluding there was standing for a challenge to the Amended DMSA as applied to out-of-state attorneys? Did the trial court err in concluding that the Amended DMSA violates the United States Constitution?

b000ctr

Text Box

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 10:00 a.m. … Justice Hood's Chambers 2013SC838 ... SUPREME COURT,...

Documents

Transcript of SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 10:00 a.m. … Justice Hood's Chambers 2013SC838 ... SUPREME COURT,...