Oral Argument: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Coats' Chambers. 2011SA86 and 2011SA124 (1 HOUR, 30 MINUTES)

Transcription

1 Oral Argument: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Coats' Chambers 2011SA SA124 (1 HOUR, 30 MINUTES) Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Applicant Raftopoulos Brothers in Moffat County Opposer-Appellant: Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership, Applicant-Appellee: Raftopoulos Brothers, Opposers-Appellees: Erin C. H. Light, in her official capacity as Division Engineer, Water Division 6 The United States of America, Department of Interior, Bureau of L Management U.S. Fish Wild Life Service. For the Opposer-Appellant Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership: Jack Samuel Silver Kent Hugh Holsinger Laura Lee Chartr HOLSINGER LAW, LLC For the Applicant-Appellee Raftopoulos Brothers: David Carl Hallford Scott A Grosscup Scott M Balcomb BALCOMB & GREEN PC For the Opposer-Appellee Erin C. H. Light, in her official capacity as Division Engineer, Water Division 6: John Joseph Cyran, First Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For the Opposer-Appellee The United States of America, Department of Interior, Bureau of L Management U.S. Fish Wild Life Service: James J Dubois US DEPT OF JUSTICE NATURAL RESOURCE Appeal from the District Court,, 2008CW89 Docketed: March 28, 2011 At Issue: October 12, SA124 (1 HOUR, 30 MINUTES) Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Applicant Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership in Moffat County Opposer-Appellant: Raftopoulos Brothers, For the Opposer-Appellant Raftopoulos Brothers: Scott A Grosscup Scott M Balcomb David Carl Hallford BALCOMB & GREEN PC For the Opposer-Appellee Erin Light, in her official

2 Oral Argument: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Coats' Chambers Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Applicant Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership in Moffat County Opposer-Appellant: Raftopoulos Brothers, Applicant-Appellee: Vermillion Ranch Limited Partnership, Opposer-Appellee: For the Opposer-Appellant Raftopoulos Brothers: Scott A Grosscup Scott M Balcomb David Carl Hallford BALCOMB & GREEN PC For the Opposer-Appellee Erin Light, in her official capacity as Division Engineer Water Division 6, pursuant to CAR 1(e): John Joseph Cyran First Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL James J Dubois US DEPT OF JUSTICE NATURAL RESOURCE Erin Light, in her official capacity as Division Engineer Water Division 6, pursuant to CAR 1(e).

3 Oral Argument: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Coats' Chambers 10:30 a.m. 2011SA136 (1 HOUR) Concerning the Revised Abonment List of Water Rights in Water Division 2 Concerning the Protest of Nol G. Thorsteinson Margie M. Thorsteinson in Pueblo County, Colorado Protestants-Appellants: John C. Harrison, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nolan G. Thorsteinson The Margie (Dotts) M. Thorsteinson Trust, For the Protestants-Appellants John C. Harrison, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nolan G. Thorsteinson, The Margie (Dotts) M. Thorsteinson Trust: Max I Exline MAX I EXLINE ATTORNEY For the Respondents-Appellees Harold D. Simpson, State Engineer for the State of Colorado, Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer for Water Division 2: Jennifer Lyn Mele OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondents-Appellees: Harold D. Simpson, State Engineer for the State of Colorado Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer for Water Division 2. Appeal from the District Court,, 2002CW189 Docketed: May 6, 2011 At Issue: October 31, 2011

4 Oral Argument: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 2010SC617 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: Charles Anthony Gross. For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Joseph G. Michaels Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General For the Respondent Charles Anthony Gross: Mark Gregory Walta WALTA GEHRING HARMS & DINGLE, LLC Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2007CA2255 Docketed: September 14, 2010 At Issue: October 19, 2011 Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury it could consider self-defense with respect to the charge of extreme indifference murder. Whether the court of appeals erroneously applied the exception to the invited error doctrine in People Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002), to permit plain error review of a defense tendered instruction because it believed defense counsel's strategy was 'incompetent.'

5 Oral Argument: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 10:15 a.m. 2010SC853 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Respondents: Christopher Roinestadt, Gerald Fitz-Gerald, Tim Kirkpatrick d/b/a Hog's Breath Saloon & Restaurant. For the Petitioner Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company: Joseph F. Bermudez Jessica Clark Collier WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DI For the Respondents Christopher Roinestadt Gerald Fitz-Gerald: Damon John Davis Nicholas W. Mayle J Keith Killian KILLIAN & DAVIS, P.C. For the Respondent Tim Kirkpatrick d/b/a Hog's Breath Saloon & Restaurant: Tim Kirkpatrick d/b/a Hog's Breath Saloon & Restaurant Pro Se For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association David P. Mason LEVENTHAL BROWN & PUGA, PC Bradley Aaron Levin ROBERTS LEVIN ROSENBERG, PC For Amicus Curiae Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association Joanne M Zboyan SPRINGER AND STEINEBERG, P.C. For Amicus Curiae United Policyholders James Matthew Davis REED SMITH LLP Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA2179 Docketed: December 17, 2010 At Issue: November 7, 2011 Whether the court of appeals erred in construing Mountain States' pollution exclusion clause to not exclude coverage for plaintiffs' injuries. Whether, in this case, the court of appeals erred by directing the district court to enter judgment for plaintiffs to enforce the writ of garnishment rather than reming the case to district court for further proceedings.

6 Oral Argument: Thursday, January 26, SC852 (1 HOUR) Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C., Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: Elizabeth Flood. For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C.: Adam Lloyd Plotkin Steven J Wienczkowski ADAM L. PLOTKIN, PC Sean Robert Gallagher Bennett L Cohen POLSINELLI SHUGHART, PC For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Elizabeth Flood: Gary Merenstein GARY MERENSTEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW Alan C. Friedberg Susan Marie Hargleroad PENDLETON FRIEDBERG WILSON & For Amicus Curiae ACA International Edward T Ramey HIZER PAUL GRUESKIN, LLP For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Bar Association Marcy Geoffrey Glenn HOLLAND & HART LLP Michael H Berger HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP David L Masters THE MASTERS LAW FIRM Paul H Chan UNIVERSITY OF DENVER For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association David P. Mason LEVENTHAL BROWN & PUGA, PC Bradley Aaron Levin ROBERTS LEVIN ROSENBERG, PC Certiorari to the District Court, Boulder County, 2009CV623 Docketed: December 17, 2010 At Issue: September 15, 2011 Whether an arrangement in which trial counsel goes beyond advancing court costs expenses of litigation by

7 Oral Argument: Thursday, January 26, 2012 Whether an arrangement in which trial counsel goes beyond advancing court costs expenses of litigation by personally paying the attorney fees for appellate counsel violates Rule 1.8(e) of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. In a matter on appeal from county court to district court, whether the district court erred in denying Petitioner's separate motion for attorneys' fees on appeal, in particular relying upon C.A.R. 28(b) 39.5 as persuasive authority for such denial when the appellate rules expressly provide that 'Rules 1 through 48, except where specifically noted otherwise, apply to appeals to either the supreme court or to the court of appeals.' Whether the district court erred in relying on C.A.R. 28(b) 39.5 to deny costs to Petitioner, when those rules are expressly applicable only to appeals to either the supreme court or to the court of appeals, moreover do not apply to requests for costs in any forum.

8 Oral Argument: Thursday, January 26, :15 a.m. 2010SC670 (1 HOUR) Petitioners: Town of Minturn, Colorado; Ginn Battle North, LLC; Ginn Battle South, LLC; Ginn-LA Battle One Ltd., LLLP; Respondent: Sensible Housing Co., Inc.. For the Petitioner Town of Minturn, Colorado: Allen Carl Christensen ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW Arthur Barlow Ferguson HOLLAND & HART LLP For the Petitioners Ginn Battle North, LLC, Ginn Battle South, LLC, Ginn-LA Battle One Ltd., LLLP: Heidi C Potter BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP Sarah J Baker SARAH J BAKER PC For the Respondent Sensible Housing Co., Inc.: Garry R Appel APPEL & LUCAS, PC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League Rachel Lee Allen COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA1824 Docketed: October 1, 2010 At Issue: August 30, 2011 Whether the court of appeals violated the separation of powers doctrine by applying the priority rule to bar a home rule municipality from proceeding with a legislative annexation determination where the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, C. R.S. sections to vests a municipality with exclusive authority to annex property. Whether, in the alternative, if the priority rule applies where concurrent court legislative annexation proceedings are pending, the court of appeals erred when it sua sponte determined, contrary to Wiltgen Berg, 435 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1967), that a town's annexation ordinances were void ab initio.