Courts in the Community - Mountain Vista High School

Transcription

1 Oral Argument: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers 9:15 a.m. 2016SC815 (1 HOUR) Courts in the Community - Mountain Vista High School Petitioners: Keith Love Shannon Love, Respondents: Mark Klosky Carole Bishop. For the Petitioners: William R Meyer Bennett L Cohen POLSINELLI PC For the Respondents: Richard John Gleason Thomas J Overton THOMAS J. OVERTON LLC Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015CA1505 Docketed: October 18, 2016 ISSUE(S): [REFRAMED] Whether this court should overrule its decision in Rhodig Keck, 421 P.2d 729 (Colo. 1966).

2 Oral Argument: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Boatright's Chambers 10:30 a.m. 2015SC448 (1 HOUR) Courts in the Community - Mountain Vista High School Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: Isidore A Griego. For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Katharine Jackson Gillespie OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For the Respondent Isidore A Griego: Sarah A. Kellogg COLORADO PUBLIC DEFENDER APPELLATE Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010CA2609 Docketed: May 27, 2015 ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred when it ruled that a specific, identifiable individual had to be harmed for the defendant to be found guilty of attempted reckless manslaughter attempted second degree assault. Whether the court of appeals erred when it ruled that the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of attempted reckless manslaughter attempted second degree assault because there was some evidence to support the convictions.

3 Oral Argument: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Márquez' Chambers 9:00 a.m. 2015SC472 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent: Dale Fisher. For the Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company: Alan Epstein HALL & EVANS LLC Franklin Delanor Patterson PATTERSON SALG P.C. Jon F Ss SWEETBAUM SANDS ANDERSON PC William B Stanton WILLIAM B. STANTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW For the Respondent Dale Fisher: Jere Kyle Bachus BACHUS SCHANKER LLC For Amici Curiae American Insurance Association, Colorado Civil Justice League, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Property Castualty Insurers Association of America: Terence M Ridley Kayla Scroggins Evan B. Stephenson WHEELER TRIGG ODONNELL LLP For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association Jeffrey Clay Ruebel Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2013CA2361 Docketed: June 8, 2015 ISSUE: Whether the court of appeals incorrectly ruled that automobile insurers have a duty to advance partial payments on undisputed portions of an uninsured/underinsured ('UM/UIM') claim even though the complete claim has not been resolved.

4 Oral Argument: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Márquez' Chambers 10:00 a.m. 2017SA19 (1 HOUR) Plaintiff-Appellant: Bar Star L, LLC, Defendant-Appellee: Elkhorn Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc., For the Plaintiff-Appellant Bar Star L, LLC: Adam Charles Davenport BAR STAR ENERGY SERVICES LLC For the Defendant-Appellee Elkhorn Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc.: Paul F Holleman John David Buchanan BUCHANAN SPERLING HOLLEMAN PC Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e)s: David Nettles, Division Engineer, Water Division 1 Dick Wolfe, State Engineer. Appeal from the District Court,, 2016CW3132 Docketed: January 31, 2017 ISSUE(S): Whether the Water Court s ruling was contrary to Colorado law when it found that junior, out-of-priority groundwater pumping is equivalent to use of senior replacement water rights at the decreed point of diversion by the purported owner where the owner has not exercised those rights at the decreed point of diversion in over 40 years. Whether the Water Court applied an incorrect stard of review by requiring Bar Star to establish the allegations in its Complaint. Whether the allegations in Bar Star s Complaint are sufficient as a matter of law to state a claim for either adverse possession or abonment where the Complaint contains specific factual allegations for each element of those claims.

5 Oral Argument: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Márquez' Chambers 11:00 a.m. 2015SC3 (44 MINUTES) Petitioner: Christopher Alexer Pernell, Respondent: The People of the State of Colorado. For the Petitioner Christopher Alexer Pernell: Sean James Lacefield BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI, LLP For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado: Melissa Dick Allen Emmy Ashmus Langley OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA510 Docketed: January 2, 2015 ISSUE(S): Whether as a matter of first impression, a defendant's opening statement can "open the door" to otherwise inadmissible evidence.

6 Oral Argument: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Márquez Chambers 1:30 p.m. 2017SA20 (1 HOUR) In Re: Plaintiffs: Kelley Bailey Michael Bailey, Defendants: Mark Hermacinski, M.D.; Leslie Ahlmeyer, M.D.; Mary Bowman, M.D.; Yampa Valley Medical Center, a nonprofit corporation. For the Plaintiff Kelley Bailey: Julia Treacy Thompson SCHOENWALD THOMPSON LLC For the Plaintiff Michael Bailey: Julia Treacy Thompson SCHOENWALD THOMPSON LLC For the Defendant Mark Hermacinski, M.D.: Jared Richard Ellis David H Yun JAUDON AVERY LLP Thomas Jerome Kresl KRESL & JOHNSON, PC For the Defendant Leslie Ahlmeyer, M.D.: Amy Elizabeth Cook-Olson COOPER RICE OLSON LLC David H Yun Jared Richard Ellis JAUDON AVERY LLP For the Defendant Mary Bowman, M.D.: Lisanne Newell Leasure FARACI LEASURE LLC Jared Richard Ellis David H Yun JAUDON AVERY LLP For the Defendant Yampa Valley Medical Center, a non-profit corporation: Jared Richard Ellis David H Yun JAUDON AVERY LLP Jessie Marie Fischer Stephen J Hensen NIXON SHEFRIN HENSEN OGBURN P.C For Amicus Curiae COPIC Insurance Company Daniel Desmond Domenico KITTREDGE LLC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association Casey A Quillen Jeffrey Clay Ruebel RUEBEL QUILLEN

7 Oral Argument: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Márquez' Chambers 1:30 p.m. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Medical Society Amy Kay Cardone John L Conklin CONKLIN CARDONE & RUTBERG, P.C. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association Joseph Francis Bennett CROSS BENNETT LLC For Amicus Curiae Regents of the University of Colorado Patrick Terrence O'Rourke OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY COUNSEL Original Proceeding, District Court,, 2016CV30089 Docketed: February 3, 2017 ISSUE(S): Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to properly apply the Reutter-Samms analysis in allowing unfettered ex parte communications with virtually all independent successor treating physicians in this case, even though none were in consultation with the Defendants, most held residually privileged information preserved on a privilege log. Given the inconsistent, recurring, time-consuming costly trial-court applications of the Reutter-Samms that result in errors for which no other adequate remedy exists, whether this Court should revisit clarify the analytical factors to promote consistency, proportionality, the just, speedy, inexpensive determination of actions. Whether ex parte communications should ever be allowed with physicians who are in a current treating relationship with the plaintiff, who possess residually privileged information, who were never in consultation with a defendant, where any such ex parte contact could impact the physician-patient relationship by undue influence or otherwise thereby undermining the plaintiff s right to privacy confidentiality. Whether the district court abused its discretion fail to adequately consider protect against the risk of undue influence in permitting ex parte contacts with physicians who were not in consultation with any of the Defendants in such a small medical community. Whether district courts should apply protective orders, pursuant to Samms, wherein ex parte contacts are allowed so as to protect residual privilege, limit the nature scope of the facts opinions sought, thus, minimize any undue influence comply with C.R.C.P. 26.

8 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 9:00 a.m. 2016SC666 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: Oakwood Holdings, LLC, Respondent: Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC. For the Petitioner Oakwood Holdings, LLC: Steven Navaro NAVARO ASSOCIATES LLC Geoffrey P Anderson Reagan Coe Walsh Larkin SWEETBAUM SANDS ANDERSON PC For the Respondent Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC: Kara Marie Jensen Snow Maris Shapson Davies HINDMANSANCHEZ P.C. Joseph Allen Murr Daniel R Delaney MURR SILER ACCOMAZZO P.C. Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015CA1046 Docketed: August 25, 2016 ISSUE(S): [REFRAMED] Did the court of appeals err in holding that petitioner, a junior lienor, has a duty to accept the tender of funds from the respondent, a certificate of purchase holder acting on behalf of a foreclosed debtor, after the junior lienor has filed a notice of intent to redeem but before it has tendered redemption funds.

9 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 10:00 a.m. 2016SC922 (44 MINUTES) Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: Carl A. Brown. For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Carmen Moraleda OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For the Respondent Carl A. Brown: Rachel K. Mercer OFFICE OF THE COLORADO STATE PUBLIC Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2014CA959 Docketed: December 7, 2016 ISSUE(S): Whether a police officer's decision to impound the vehicle of a driver driving with a suspended license violates the Fourth Amendment where the officer had discretion to impound following stardized departmental policies.

10 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 10:45 a.m. 2016SA320 (44 MINUTES) Plaintiff-Appellant: The People of the State of Colorado, For the Plaintiff-Appellant The People of the State of Colorado: Susan Joyce Trout George Herbert Brauchler OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Defendant-Appellee: Therrold Cannon Quick. For the Defendant-Appellee Therrold Cannon Quick: Yona Porat COLORADO SPRINGS PUBLIC DEFENDER Rachel K. Mercer OFFICE OF THE COLORADO STATE PUBLIC Appeal from the District Court, Arapahoe County, 2015CR2263 Docketed: December 19, 2016 ISSUE(S): Whether the district court erred in supressing evidence that was collected pursuant to a valid impoundment decision.

11 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 1:30 p.m. 2016SA291 (1 HOUR) Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City County of Denver, acting by through its Board of Water Commissioners in Douglas, Jefferson, Arapahoe, Denver, Broomfield, Weld, Adams, Park Counties Opposers-Appellants: Consolidated Ditches of Water District No. 2; Parker Water Sanitation District; Central Colorado Water Conservancy District; City of Aurora, Colorado, a municipal corporation of the Counties of Adams, Arapahoe Douglas, acting by through its Utility Enterprise; Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Company; Applicant-Appellee: City County of Denver, acting by through its Board of Water Commissioners, Opposers-Appellees: Bijou Irrigation Company Bijou Irrigation Ditch, Centennial Water Sanitation District, City County of Broomfield, City of Brighton, City of Commerce City, City of Louisville, City of Thornton, City of Westminster, Coors Brewing Company, East Cherry Creek Valley Water Sanitation District, Fairmount Cemetery Company, Farmers High Line Canal, Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company, Henrylyn Irrigation District, New Brantner Extension Ditch, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Platte Valley Irrigation Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, South Adams County Water Sanitation District, South Suburban Park Recreation District, Denver County Club, Upper Cherry Creek Water Association, United Water Sanitation District, Concerning Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e)s: David Nettles, Division Engineer, Water Division No. 1 Dick Wolfe, Colorado State Engineer. For the Opposer-Appellant Consolidated Ditches of Water District No. 2: Eliza Finkenstaedt Hillhouse John P. Justus William A Hillhouse HOSKIN FARINA KAMPF PC Brice Steele LAW OFFICES OF BRICE STEELE PC For the Opposer-Appellant Parker Water Sanitation District: Robert Frederick Taylo Krassa KRASSA & MILLER, LLC For the Opposer-Appellant Central Colorado Water Conservancy District: Kim Robert Lawrence Wesley Sage Knoll David Phillip Jones LAWRENCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK LLP For the Opposer-Appellant City of Aurora, Colorado, a municipal corporation of the Counties of Adams, Arapahoe Douglas, acting by through its Utility Enterprise: John Marshall Dingess HAMRE RODRIGUEZ OSTRANDER DINGESS Peter Charles Johnson PC JOHNSON ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC For the Opposer-Appellant Farmers Reservoir Irrigation Company: Joseph B Dischinger Beth Van Vurst Dean Carlton Hirt Beth Ann Jones Parsons FAIRFIELD AND WOODS PC For the Applicant-Appellee City County of Denver, acting by through its Board of Water Commissioners: Daniel John Arnold DENVER WATER Casey S Funk DENVER WATER BOARD Patricia L Wells DENVER WATER DEPARTMENT

12 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 1:30 p.m. For the Opposer-Appellee Bijou Irrigation Company Bijou Irrigation Ditch: Stuart B Corbridge VRANESH AND RAISCH LLP For the Opposer-Appellee Centennial Water Sanitation District: Veronica A Sperling BUCHANAN SPERLING HOLLEMAN PC For the Opposer-Appellee City County of Broomfield: Harvey William Curtis David L Kueter HARVEY W. CURTIS AND ASSOCIATES For the Opposer-Appellee City of Brighton: Brent A Bartlett Sara J.l. Irby FISCHER BROWN BARTLETT GUNN P.C. For the Opposer-Appellee City of Commerce City: Paul Zilis Andrea Aseff Kehrl Aaron S. Ladd VRANESH AND RAISCH LLP For the Opposer-Appellee City of Thornton: Joanne Herlihy CITY OF THORNTON For the Opposer-Appellee City of Westminster: Lee H Johnson Mason Hamill Brown CARLSON HAMMOND PADDOCK LLC For the Opposer-Appellee Coors Brewing Company: Bernard F Gehris Stephen Hunter Leonhardt BURNS FIGA WILL P.C.

13 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 1:30 p.m. For the Opposer-Appellee East Cherry Creek Valley Water Sanitation District: Brian M Nazarenus RYLEY CARLOCK APPLEWHITE Sheela S Stack RYLEY CARLOCK APPLEWHITE For the Opposer-Appellee Fairmount Cemetery Company: Veronica A Sperling BUCHANAN SPERLING HOLLEMAN PC For the Opposer-Appellee Farmers High Line Canal: Brice Steele LAW OFFICES OF BRICE STEELE PC For the Opposer-Appellee Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company: Brice Steele LAW OFFICES OF BRICE STEELE PC For the Opposer-Appellee Henrylyn Irrigation District: Alyson Meyer Gould Kent Hugh Holsinger HOLSINGER LAW LLC For the Opposer-Appellee New Brantner Extension Ditch: Brice Steele LAW OFFICES OF BRICE STEELE PC For the Opposer-Appellee Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: Bennett William Raley TROUT RALEY William Davis Wert TROUT RALEY MONTANO FREEMAN SINOR Douglas M Sinor TROUT RALEY MONTANO WITWER FREEMAN For the Opposer-Appellee Platte Valley Irrigation Company: Jeffrey J Kahn LYONS GADDIS Scott E Holwick LYONS GADDIS KAHN HALL JEFFERS DWOR For the Opposer-Appellee Public Service Company of Colorado: Jens Jensen WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK TOOLEY P.C.

14 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: Justice Eid's Chambers 1:30 p.m. Carolyn F Burr James Merle Noble WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK TOOLEY PC For the Opposer-Appellee South Adams County Water Sanitation District: Alison I.d. Gorsevski Richard John Mehren MOSES WITTEMYER HARRISON AND WOODRU For the Opposer-Appellee South Suburban Park Recreation District: Joseph William Norris Evan D Ela COLLINS COCKREL COLE PC For the Opposer-Appellee Denver County Club: Karl David Ohlsen William Arthur Paddock CARLSON HAMMOND PADDOCK LLC For the Opposer-Appellee Upper Cherry Creek Water Association: John Marshall Dingess HAMRE RODRIGUEZ OSTRANDER DINGESS Peter Charles Johnson PC JOHNSON ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC For the Opposer-Appellee United Water Sanitation District: Ann Marie Rhodes ANN RHODES, LLC Tod Jay Smith LAW OFFICE OF TOD J. SMITH For the Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e) David Nettles, Division Engineer, Water Division No. 1 State Engineer: Jennifer Lyn Mele Paul Louis Benington OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For Amicus Curiae Board of County Commissioners of Summit County, Colorado David S Hayes Charles Byron White PETROS WHITE LLC

15 Oral Argument: Thursday, October 19, 2017 Bailiff: 1:30 p.m. PETROS WHITE LLC For Amicus Curiae City of Colorado Springs Michael John Gustafson COLORADO SPRINGS CITY ATTORNEYS OFF Matthew A. Montgomery David W Robbins HILL ROBBINS PC For Amicus Curiae Colorado River Water Conservation District Peter Cheney Fleming Jason Victor Turner COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION For Amicus Curiae Eagle River Water Sanitation District Glenn Edward Porzak PORZAK BROWNING BUSHONG LLP For Amicus Curiae Gr Valley Water Users Association Kirsten Marie Kurath WILLIAMS TURNER HOLMES PC For Amicus Curiae Middle Park Water Conservancy District Stanley W Cazier CAZIER MCGOWAN For Amicus Curiae Orchard Mesa Irrigation District Kirsten Marie Kurath WILLIAMS TURNER HOLMES PC For Amicus Curiae Palisade Irrigation District Nathan A. Keever DUFFORD WALDECK MILBURN Appeal from the District Court,, 2012CW5 Docketed: November 4, 2016 For Amicus Curiae Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Glenn Edward Porzak PORZAK BROWNING BUSHONG LLP For Amicus Curiae Ute Water Conservancy District Kirsten Marie Kurath WILLIAMS TURNER HOLMES PC

16 ISSUES: Is water stored by Denver in the Williams Fork Reservoir ( WFR ) under its November 10, 1935 priority subject to the 1940 Agreement? Consolidated Ditches contends that this issue was determined in City &County of Denver Consolidated Ditches Co. of District No. 2, 807 P.2d23 (Colo. 1991)? May Denver avoid the reuse prohibition of the 1940 Agreement by using water stored in WFR under its November 10, 1935 priority as a source of substitute supply in exchange or substitution operations to facilities that have a post-may 1, 1940 priority? Did the Water Court err by conflating the priority date of Denver s decreed appropriation of exchange potential from WFR to Dillon Reservoir with the priority of the substitute supply from WFR? Under the character of exchange rule, do the obligations attributes associated with the substitute supply, including contractual limitations, apply to the water diverted by exchange or substitution? Did the Water Court err by limiting the character of exchange rule to the amount quality of a source of substitute supply?