June Oral Arguments

8/6/2019 June Oral Arguments

1/13

1

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 EN BANC

Bailiff: Douglas Edwards/Grant Sullivan

10SC419 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Colorado Division of Unemployment andTraining,

v.

Respondents:

Accord Human Resources, Inc. and Industrial

Claim Appeals Office of the State ofColorado.

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

For the Petitioner:John W. Suthers

Attorney GeneralKatie Allison

Assistant Attorney General

For the Respondent Accord Human

Resources:

Thomas M. Rogers, IIIJaclyn K. Casey

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLPand

Brian M. NugentThe Nugent Law Firm, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae the Denver Metro

Chamber of Commerce:Donald K. Bain

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA1356

Docketed: June 25, 2010At Issue: March 11, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether section 8-70-114 C.R.S. (2010) gives the Division the authority to combine separateentities with separate employer accounts into a single employing unit for the purpose of

assessing unemployment taxes.______________________________________________________________________________


2/13

2

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:00 a.mEN BANC

10SC330 ( HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

In the Interest of Minor Children:

A. G., A. G., R. B., and N. B.,

v.

Respondent:

C. M.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioner:Phillip F. Malouff, Jr.Mendenhall & Malouff, R.L.L.P.

For the Respondent:

Davide C. Migliaccio

For the minor children:Kim R. Verhoeff


Docketed: May 19, 2010At Issue: April 8, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by deciding that the family relationship between the courtclerk and a material witness required the trial judge to recuse himself.

_____________________________________________________________________________


3/13

3

Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 10:30 a.m.EN BANC

10SC446 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Jerad Allen Pickering.

)

))

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioner:John W. SuthersAttorney General

John J. Fuerst, IIISenior Assistant Attorney General

For the Respondent:

Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public Defender

Ryann S. HardmanDeputy Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA2322Docketed: July 9, 2010

At Issue: April 4, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing respondents conviction for reckless

manslaughter because the trial court instructed the jury pursuant to section 18-1-704(4), C.R.S.(2010), that the prosecution does not bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that

the defendant did not act in self-defense.______________________________________________________________________________


4/13

4

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 EN BANC

Bailiff: Timothy Zimmerman/Trina Ruhland

10SC275 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The Glenelk Association, Inc.,

v.

Respondent:

Ronald P. Lewis.

))

))

))

))

)

For the Petitioner:Allan L. Hale

Richard A. WestfallPeter J. Krumholz

Hale Westfall, LLP

For the Respondent:Victor F. Boog

Boog & Cruser, P.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA1209Docketed: April 29, 2010

At Issue: April 1, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by deciding that the condemnor had proved necessity andscope of the proposed easement without examining the purported "practical use of the property"

for which the taking is claimed to determine whether the taking is "indispensable" to that use.______________________________________________________________________________


5/13

5

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 EN BANCBailiff: Tricia Leakey/Melissa Boness

10SC344 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

The Regents of the University of Colorado;

Stephen Ludwig, in his official capacity asRegent; Joseph Neguse, in his official

capacity as Regent; Monisha Merchant, in herofficial capacity as Regent; Michael Carrigan,

in his official capacity as Regent; TomLucero, in his official capacity as Regent;

Steve Bosley, in his official capacity asRegent; Kyle Hybl, in his official capacity as

Regent; James Geddes, in his official capacityas Regent; Tilman Bishop, in his official

capacity as Regent; Jim Spice, in his officialcapacity as Chief of Campus Police,

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs;Pam Shockley-Zalabak, in her official

capacity as Chancellor, University ofColorado at Colorado Springs; Doug

Abraham, in his official capacity as Chief ofCampus Police, University of Colorado

Denver; and M. Roy Wilson, in his officialcapacity as Chancellor, University of

Colorado Denver;

v.

Respondents:

Students for Concealed Carry On Campus,LLC, a Texas limited liability company;

Martha Altman; Eric Mote; and John Davis.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

For the Petitioners:Patrick T. ORourkeMargaret Wilensky

Office of University Counsel

For the Respondents:James M. Manley

Mountain States Legal Foundation

For Amicus Curiae The Brady Center to

Prevent Gun Violence, Colorado

Ceasefire Capitol Fund, and the Greater

Denver Million Mom March:

Edward T. RameyIsaacson Rosenbaum P.C.

For Amicus Curiae National Rifle

Association:Richard A. Westfall

Peter J. KrumholzHale Westfall, LLP

For Amicus Curiae Rocky Mountain

Gun Owners :Terrance L. Ryan

The Terry Ryan Law Firm, LLC

For Amicus Curiae The County Sheriffs

of Colorado and The Independence

Institute :David B. Kopel

Tyler Martinez

For Amicus Curiae Second Amendment

Foundation:

Ann Whalen GillHighlands Ranch Law Center, P.C.

and

contd on next page


6/13

6

)

))

))

10SC344contd from previous page

Mikolaj T. Tempski (pro hac vice)

Second Amendment Foundationand

Alan Gura (pro hac vice)Gura & Possessky, P.L.L.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA1230Docketed: May 25, 2010

At Issue: February 23, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the General Assembly intended the Concealed Carry Act to divest the Board of Regentsof its constitutional and statutory authority to enact safety and welfare measures for the

University of Colorados campuses.

Whether a constitutional challenge to a statute or ordinance regulating the right to bear arms isgoverned by the deferential rational basis standard of review or a more stringent reasonable

exercise standard of review.______________________________________________________________________________


7/13

7

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 10:00 a.m.EN BANC

10SC325 ( HOUR)

Petitioner:

Charles Glenn McKendry,

v.

Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado.

)

))

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioner:Douglas K. WilsonColorado State Public Defender

Dana L. MenzelDeputy State Public Defender

For the Respondent:

Carol ChambersDistrict Attorney

Jacob EdsonDeputy District Attorney


Docketed: May 17, 2010At Issue: February 7, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the respondent is required to present sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that

an adult is at-risk in relation to a charge of sexual assault on an at-risk adult pursuant tosections 18-6.5-103(7)(a) and 18-3-402(1)(a), C.R.S. (2010) at a preliminary hearing.

______________________________________________________________________________


8/13

8

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 10:30 a.m.EN BANC

10SC281 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Monica David Vickery,

v.

Respondent:

Merry Gayle Vickery.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

For the Petitioner:Gregory R. GiomettiCarl W. Dowdy

Gregory R. Giometti & Assoc. P.C.

For the Respondent:Dennis J. Tharp

Jessica H. CatlinStevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp &

Weinberg, LLC

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Civil

Justice League:

Christopher L. OtteleChristopher Brady

Husch Blackwell LLP


Docketed: April 30, 2010At Issue: February 23, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that statutorily mandated prejudgment interest

should not be added to the jurys assessment of compensatory damages before exemplarydamages awarded by the jury are reduced to the one-to-one ratio required by C.R.S. section 13-

21-102(1)(a).______________________________________________________________________________


9/13

9

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

Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 EN BANCBailiff: Rachel Jones/Jennifer Seidenberg

10SA373 (1 HOUR)

In Re

Plaintiff:

Ernest Ortega,

v.

Defendants:

Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C.;

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado;and David Lieuwen, M.D.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

)

For the Petitioner:Jim LeventhalMolly L. Greenblat

Benjamin I. SachsDavid P. Mason

Leventhal, Brown & Puga, P.C.

For the Respondents Kaiser Foundation

Health Plan of Colorado andDavid

Lieuwen, M.D :John L. Conklin

Amy K. CardoneMartin Conklin, P.C.

andElizabeth C. Moran

Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae for the Regents of

the University of Colorado:

Patrick T. ORourkeOffice of the University Counsel

For Amicus Curiae HCA Healthone

LLCs:John A. Francis

Richard P. HolmeLisa Edwards Rothrock

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP

For Amicus Curiae Copic Insurance

Company:

Andrew M. LowRichard P. Holme

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP

contd on next page


10/13

10

)

))

)

10SA373contd from previous page

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Medical

SocietyKari M. Hershey

Hershey Skinner, LLC

Original Proceeding, District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV9328

Docketed: December 10, 2010At Issue: March 25, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether, in a medical malpractice action brought against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of

Colorado and one of its affiliated physicians by a former Kaiser enrollee, the district court erredin finding that no physician-patient privilege attaches to any information in the enrollees

medical records merely because such records -- spanning a period of over ten years and covering

numerous examinations and treatments of unrelated medical conditions by scores of non-partyphysicians and nurses -- are stored on Kaisers electronic records system, that all information inthese records is relevant and/or pertinent to the dispute, and that all such records are therefore

properly discoverable.______________________________________________________________________________


11/13

11

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

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 9, 2011 EN BANCBailiff: Stuart Gillespie/Chad Grell

10SC220 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

Roxy Huber, in her capacity as Executive

Director of the Department of Revenue, Stateof Colorado; The Colorado Department of

Revenue; and The State of Colorado;

v.

Respondents:

Colorado Mining Association; TwentymileCoal Company; Mountain Coal Company,

LLC; Colowyo Coal Company, L.P.; OxbowMining, LLC; Trapper Mining Inc.; and

Bowie Resources, LLC.

)

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioners:John W. SuthersAttorney General

Daniel D. DomenicoSolicitor General

Maurice G. KnaizerDeputy Attorney General

Matthew D. GroveAssistant Attorney General

For the Respondents:

Paul M. SebyMarian C. Larsen

Moye White LLP

For Amicus Curiae Tri-State Generation

and Transmission Association, Inc.:

Thomas J. DoughertyRothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP

For Amicus Curiae Colorado

Association of Commerce and Industry

and Denver Chamber of Commerce:

Matthew A. MorrFeatherstone Petrie DeSisto LLP


Docketed: April 5, 2010At Issue: December 23, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether application of a statutory provision enacted before the adoption of the Colorado

Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Colo. Const. art. X, section 20, which increases taxes based on aninflation adjustment factor tethered to an external economic index, amounts to a tax rate

increase requiring statewide voter approval.______________________________________________________________________________


12/13

12

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 9, 2011 10:00 a.m.EN BANC

09SC519 ( HOUR)

Petitioner:

Daniel Shane Hassler,

v.

Respondent:

Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc.

)

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioner:Larry Dean Valente

For the Respondent:Adam L. Plotkin

Steven J. WienczkowskiAdam L. Plotkin, P.C.

Certiorari to the District Court, Jefferson County, 09CV444

Docketed: June 17, 2009At Issue: November 22, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court erred in upholding the county court magistrates order finding that the

six-year statute of limitations set forth in section 13-80-103.5(1)(a), C.R.S. (2009), began to runthe day after the sale of a repossessed vehicle rather than the day after the default of the contract

to purchase the vehicle occurred.______________________________________________________________________________


13/13

13

Oral Argument: Thursday, June 9, 2011 10:30 a.m.EN BANC

10SC159 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:

Judith Koenig,

v.

Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:

Purco Fleet Services, Inc., a Utah corporation.

)

))

))

))

))

))

For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:Brendan O. PowersJack D. Robinson

Spies, Powers & Robinson, P.C.

For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:Stephen G. Masciocchi

Holland & Hartand

Stephen K. Christiansen (pro hac vice)Van Cot, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy


Docketed: March 8, 2010At Issue: February 22, 2011

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting a car rental agreement permitting loss of use

damages regardless of fleet utilization as providing for such damages by proof of certain lossprerequisites.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the measure of damages for loss of use is

net lost profits.______________________________________________________________________________

June Oral Arguments

Documents

Transcript of June Oral Arguments