Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers 2013SC838 (30 MINUTES)

Transcription

1 Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers 10:00 a.m. 2013SC838 (30 MINUTES) Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: Reginald Porter. For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Donna Skinner Reed 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY Christine Cates Brady OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For the Respondent Reginald Porter: Robert P Borquez BORQUEZ LAW OFFICE Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA459 Docketed: October 21, 2013 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.

2 Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers 10:30 a.m. 2013SC545 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: Barbara Jordan, Respondent: Panorama Orthopedics Spine Center PC. For the Petitioner Barbara Jordan: Nelson Patrick Boyle Diane Vaksdal Smith Brian Keith Matise BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH, ET AL Marc Louis Schatten SCHATTEN LAW FIRM Susan Morath Horner SUSAN MORATH HORNER, P.C. For the Respondent Panorama Orthopedics Spine Center PC: Alan Epstein HALL & EVANS LLC Michael Lewis Adams RAY LEGO & ASSOCIATES For Amici Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association National Federation of Independent Business: Forrest Vincent Plesko THOMAS POLLART & MILLER LLC For Amicus Curiae The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association Michael Douglass-Harris LAW OFFICES OF DIANNE SAWAYA, LLC Thomas Dean Neville OGBORN MIHM, LLP Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA451 Docketed: July 16, 2013 [Reframed Issue 1]: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Jordan's verdict on the grounds that Panorama was not a 'lowner' within the contemplation of the Premises Liability Act.

3 Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers 1:30 p.m. 2014SA84 (1 HOUR) Plaintiff-Appellee: Stephen Brett Ryals, Defendant-Appellant: City of Englewood. For the Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen Brett Ryals: Mark Silverstein Sara Rich Neel AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLO. Daniel David Williams Shelby L. Myers Jennifer L Sullivan Hetal J. Doshi FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP For the Defendant-Appellant City of Englewood: Gillian M. Fahlsing Thomas Sullivan Rice SENTER GOLDFARB & RICE, L.L.C. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League: Rachel Lee Allen COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE Docketed: March 24, 2014 Is City of Englewood Ordinance 34 preempted by Colorado law?

4 Oral Argument: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hood's Chambers 2:30 p.m. 2013SA336 (1 HOUR) Plaintiff-Appellee: Ral Ankeney, Defendants-Appellants: Rick Raemisch, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections Rae Timme, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility. For the Plaintiff-Appellee Ral Ankeney: Danielle Cheree Jefferis David Arthur Lane KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP Marc B Tull MARC B. TULL, ATTORNEY AT LAW For the Defendant-Appellants Rick Raemisch, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections Rae Timme, Warden of the Fremont Correctional Facility: James Xavier Quinn, First Assistant Attorney General Jacob Dorminy Massee, Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Appeal from the District Court, Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA1930 Docketed: December 24, 2013 Whether the court of appeals 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 eliminating discretionary parole. Whether the district court erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to discharge Ankeney's three year matory parole after two months when the Parole Board was not a party to the proceedings.

5 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 9:00 a.m. 2012SC605 (1 HOUR) Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: Michael Johnson. For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent The People of the State of Colorado: John Jacob Fuerst, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Michael Johnson: Adam Neil Mueller, Deputy Public Defender Office of the Public Defender Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA2203 Docketed: August 14, 2012 Whether section (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 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 (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.

6 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 10:00 a.m. 2012SC820 (30 MINUTES) Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent: Kenneth Leon Childress. For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General For the Respondent Kenneth Leon Childress: Elizabeth F Griffin, Deputy Public Defender Office of the Public Defender Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2008CA2329 Docketed: October 22, 2012 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."

7 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 10:30 a.m. 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, Applicant-Appellee: Cherokee Metropolitan District, Intervenor Appellee/Cross Appellant: Meridian Service Metropolitan District, Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e)s: Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2 Dick Wolfe, State Engineer. For the Opposer-Appellant Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management Districrt: April Hendricks Killcreas Lisa M Thompson Douglas M Sinor Peggy E Montano TROUT,RALEY,MONTANO,WITWER&FREEMAN For the Applicant-Appellee Cherokee Metropolitan District: Heather Eileen Joyce JACKSON KELLY, PLLC Kevin Francis Donovan LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN DONOVAN, LLC Peter Charles Johnson PC JOHNSON ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC Gregory Russell Piche SINGULARITY LEGAL, PLLC For the Intervenor Appellee/Cross Appellant Meridian Service Metropolitan District: Wayne Berend Schroeder W. B. SCHROEDER LAW OFFICE, LLC For the Appellees Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e) Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2 Dick Wolfe, State Engineer: Jennifer Lyn Mele Patrick E Kowaleski OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Appeal from the District Court, 1998CW80 Docketed: December 18, 2013 At Issue: October 14, 2014 Appeal from the District Court,, 1998CW80 Docketed: December 18, 2013 At Issue: October 14, 2014 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 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 recapture water brought back into the basin for a second use as replacement credit. Whether the water court erred by awarding attorney fees costs to Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District (UBS) to sanction Meridian: (a) for challenging the water court's jurisdiction in 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, (c) for moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction following the rem.

8 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 1:30 p.m. 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, Re Malcolm Himschoot, Kevin Leung, Christian Moreau, Maritza Carrera, Susan McMahon, Respondents: Douglas County School District, Douglas County Board of Education, Colorado State Board of Education, Colorado Department of Education, For the Petitioners Taxpayers for Public Education, Cindra S. Barnard, Marson S. Bernard, Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman, Re Malcolm Himschoot: Caroline Grummon Lee Michael S McCarthy Colin C Deihl Bruce Jones FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP For the Petitioner James Larue Suzanne T. Larue: Timothy R Macdonald Matthew J Douglas Michelle K. Albert ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP Intervenors-Respondents: Florence Doyle; Derrick Doyle, on their own behalf as next friends of their Children A.D. D.D.; Diana Oakley; Mark Oakley, on their own behalf as next friends of their child, N.O.; Jeanette Strohm-Anderson; Mark Anderson, on their own behalf as next friends of their child, M.A.. For the Petitioners Kevin Leung, Christian Moreau, Maritza Carrera, Susan McMahon: Sara Rich Neel Mark Silverstein AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLO. Timothy R Macdonald Matthew J Douglas Michelle K. Albert ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP For the Respondents Douglas County School District, Douglas County Board of Education: David Martin Hyams Eric V Hall James M Lyons LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER, LLP

9 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 1:30 p.m. For the Respondents Colorado State Board of Education Colorado Department of Education: Michael Lee Francisco Assistant Solicitor General John William Suthers Attorney General Nicholas G Stancil Assistant Attorney General Antony B Dyl Assistant Attorney General COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW For the Intervenor-Respondents Florence Doyle Derrick Doyle, on their own behalf as next friends of their Children A.D. D.D.; Diana Oakley Mark Oakley, on their own behalf as next friends of their child, N.O.; Jeanette Strohm-Anderson Mark Anderson, on their own behalf as next friends of their child, M.A.: Michael E Bindas Timothy D Keller William H Mellor Richard D Komer INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Raymond L Gifford WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP For or Amici Curiae American Federation of Teachers The Education Law Center: Kathleen Joan Gebhardt Elizabeth Leigh Harris LAW OFFICE OF ELIZABETH L. HARRIS, Matthew Waring Richard Katskee Andrew Frey MAYER 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, Women of Reform Judaism: Richard Katskee Matthew Waring Andrew Frey MAYER BROWN, LLP Craig Ruvel May WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP For Amici Curiae Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Independence Institute: David B Kopel INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE

10 Oral Argument: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Bailiff: Chief Justice Rice's Chambers 1:30 p.m. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of School Boards: Kathleen Anne Sullivan COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS For Amici Curiae Colorado Education Association National Education Association: Andrew Frey Richard Katskee Matthew Waring MAYER BROWN, LLP Mark Gary Grueskin RECHT KORNFELD, PC For Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation: Joshua P. Thompson PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION Ryan J. Klein SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA1856 Docketed: April 11, 2013 For Amici Curiae Association of Christian Schools International, Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs, Colorado Christian University, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities: Stuart J Lark BRYAN CAVE [REFRAMED ISSUE] Whether the court of appeals erred by restricting Colorado's sting 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 regulations necessarily deprives the plaintiffs of sting 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 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, therefore in concluding that fund monies were not spent on the Choice Scholarship Program, notwithsting 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 secondary schools controlled by churches religious organizations. Whether the Choice Scholarship Program violates the compelled-support compelled-attendance clauses of Article II, Section 4, of the Colorado Constitution by directing taxpayer funds to churches religious organizations, 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, counted by Douglas County as public school students, to be taught religious tenets, submit to religious admission tests, attend religious services.

11 Oral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers 9:00 a.m. 2013SC576 (1 HOUR) Petitioners: Antero Resources Corporation, Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, Calfrac Well Services Corporation, Frontier Drilling LLC, Respondents: William G. Strudley, individually as the parent natural guardian of William Strudley Charles Strudley, both minors Beth E. Strudley, individually as the parent natural guardian of William Strudley Charles Strudley, both minors. For the Petitioners Antero Resources Corporation Antero Resources Piceance Corporation: Daniel John Dunn Andrew Christopher Lillie David A. Demarco Catherine E. Stetson HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP Marie Yeates Sra G. Rodriguez Robert M Schick James D. Thompson el VINSON & ELKINS, LLP For the Petitioner Calfrac Well Services Corporation: Shannon Wells Stevenson Gail Leslie Wurtzler DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP For the Petitioner Frontier Drilling LLC: Matthew B Dillman BURNS FIGA & WILL PC Sarah Margaret Shechter BURNS FIGA & WILL, PC

12 Oral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers 9:00 a.m. For the Respondents William G. Strudley, individually as the parent natural guardian of William Strudley Charles Strudley, both minors Beth E. Strudley, individually as the parent natural guardian of William Strudley Charles Strudley, both minors: Corey Thomas Zurbuch FRASCONA, JOINER, GOODMAN AND GREEN Marc Jay Bern Out of State Counsel NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOC. Peter W Thomas PRAXIDICE For Amici Curiae American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association, American Fuels Petrochemical Manufacturers, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Metals Service Center Institute, National Association of Manufacturers: Terry Cipoletti FENNEMORE CRAIG PC Richard Faulk HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP For Amicus Curiae American Petroleum Institute: Jared R. Butcher Bennett Evan Cooper Mark P. Fitzsimmons STEPTOE & 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 Yates Lee Allen Mickus SNELL & WILMER, LLP

13 Oral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers 9:00 a.m. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: Casey A Quillen Jeffrey Clay Ruebel RUEBEL & QUILLEN, LLC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Petroleum Association: Harriet Ann McConnell Gregory Rudolf Tan Christopher John Neumann GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: David A Klibaner KLIBANER LAW FIRM, PC Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CV2218 Docketed: July 26, 2013 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 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.

14 Oral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers 10:30 a.m. 2012SC1005 (1 HOUR) Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado: Cameron M. Munier Deputy District Attorney 17TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Respondent: For the Respondent Gary Graves: Alison Lee Ruttenberg ALISON RUTTENBERG Gary Graves. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar: Tara Nicole Jorfald Antony Mark Noble THE NOBLE LAW FIRM, LLC Certiorari to the District Court, Adams County, 2012CV839 Docketed: December 20, 2012 At Issue: September 8, 2014 Whether the district court erred when it concluded that subsection (1)(d) of C.R.S. section , the Public Indecency statute, was unconstitutionally vague overbroad affirmed the county court's dismissal of that charge as unconstitutional.

15 Oral Argument: Thursday, December 11, 2014 Bailiff: Justice Hobbs' Chambers 1:30 p.m. 2014SA249 (1 HOUR) Plaintiffs-Appellees: Lawrence W Williamson, JR, Esq; Donald Drew Moore, Esq; Morgan Drexen, Inc, a California Corporation; For the Plaintiffs-Appellees Lawrence W Williamson, JR, Esq., Donald Drew Moore, Esq.: Karl Lee Schock BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP Stephen D Gurr BRYAN CAVE LLP Defendant-Appellee: Walter Joseph Ledda, Defendants-Appellants: John W. Suthers, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado Julie Ann Meade, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Debt-Management Services Act. For the Plaintiff-Appellee Morgan Drexen, Inc, a California Corporation Defendant-Appellee Walter Joseph Ledda: Jason R Dunn Karl Lee Schock BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP For the Defendants-Appellants John W. Suthers, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado Julie Ann Meade, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Debt-Management Services Act: Michael Lee Francisco Assistant, Solicitor General Jeanine M Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW Appeal from the District Court, Denver District Court, 2011CV7027 Docketed: August 14, 2014 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 sting 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?