Colorado State Judicial Branch - Courts - Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court has issued a Rule to Show Cause in the cases listed below. These cases are currently pending in the Court.
	13SA102 In Re: People v. Robert Storlie The petitioner, Robert S. Storlie, seeks relief from the district court order denying the People’s Motion for Nolle Presequi Order. On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents the Hon. Victor Reyes and the People of the State of Colorado are directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
	13SA94 In Re: People v. Robert Ray The petitioner, Robert Keith Ray, seeks relief from the district court order denying the petitioner’s Motions for Discovery of Information relating to the prosecution’s investigation of the petitioner’s post conviction claims. On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
	13SA91 In Re: People v. Sir Mario Owens The petitioner, Sir Mario Owens, seeks relief from the district court order denying the petitioner’s Motions for Discovery of Information relating to the prosecution’s investigation of the petitioner’s post conviction claims. On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
	13SA97 In re People v. DeAtley, Alan The petitioner, Alan Eugene DeAtley, seeks relief from the district court order denying a Motion to Withdraw and a Motion to Reconsider Motion to Withdraw. On April 11, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey is directed to answer in writing, on or before May 13, 2013. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
	12SA156 In Re: People v. John Brothers The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order denying the People’s Motions to Quash. On May 18, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent John Holland Brothers is directed to file a written answer on or before June 7, 2011; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
	12SA75 - The People v. Jesus Luna-Solis The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order suppressing DNA evidence as a sanction for the People’s C.R.Crim.P. 16(II)(a) “discovery violation”. On May 3, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Jesus Luna-Solis is directed to file a written answer on or before May 24, 2011; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

Mar 2013		12SA189- In Re: People v. Bruce Nozolino The petitioner, Bruce J. Nozolino, seeks relief from the district court order disqualifying his counsel of choice, the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender from representing him in the underlying matter. On June 21, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 23, 2012; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On March 25, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA189.pdf

Feb 2013		12SA263 In Re: People In the Interest of W.P., an Adult The petitioner, W.P., seeks relief from the district court’s order denying the Petitioner’s request for a second competency evaluation at state expense. On September 20, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 10, 2012; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 11, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA263.pdf

Feb 2013		12SA83 - In Re: Liebnow v. Boston Enterprises Petitioner Emily Liebnow, a minor, by and through her next best friends and natural parents Randy Liebnow and Suzanne Liebnow, seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 13, 2012, disqualifying the Washington state law firm of Marler Clark and, in particular, attorney Bill Marler, from serving as co-counsel for Petitioner (Plaintiff below) in the underlying personal injury case. On March 22, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, Boston Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation d/b/a Giacomo’s is directed to file a written answer on or before April 23, 2012. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 4, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA83.pdf

Dec 2012		12SA199 - Stacey Warden v. Exempla, Inc. The petitioners, Stacy and Chris Warden, individually and on behalf of their son Noah, seek relief from the district court order striking three of the petitioners expert witnesses. On July 2, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents, Jessica Jenks, R.N., Camille Calderwood, M.D., Jennifer Dillon, R.N. Exempla Good Samaritan Center L.L.C. and Exempla, Inc. d/b/a Exempla Healthcare, are directed to file a written answer on or before August 1, 2012; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On December 20, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA199.pdf

Jun 2012		12SA63 In Re the Marriage of Wiggins Petitioner Zwilda Wiggins (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court’s order of January 8, 2012 denying Petitioner’s Motion for Protective Order. On March 1, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, Jeffrey A. Wiggins is directed to file a written answer on or before March 21, 2012. Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 18, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA63.pdf

Jun 2012		12SA81, In Re: Hampers, Lous and Hampers, Kelley District Court, Arapahoe County, 2009DR3343 (Honorable Stephen Collins) In Re In re the Marriage of Hampers, Petitioner: Louis C. Hampers, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Louis C. Hampers Trust, and Constantine L. Hampers, individually and in his capacities as attorney in fact for Luis C. Hampers and Trustee of the Hampers Family Trust, Co-Petitioner: Kelley A. Hampers. Petitioner Louis C. Hampers, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Louis C. Hampers Trust seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 14, 2012, granting the Respondent (Co-Petitioner below) Kelley A. Hampers’ Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Petitioner, Louis C. Hampers. On March 19, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, Kelley A. Hampers is directed to file a written answer on or before April 18, 2012. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 4, 2012 the Court found that the financial issues have been resolved in their entirety by settlement of the parties, and the district court’s order compelling production became moot. The Court VACATED the district court’s March 14, 2012 order in it’s entirety, and DISMISSED the Rule to Show Cause previously issued.

May 2012		12SA24 In Re: People v. Brittney Angel 12SA24 In Re: People v. Brittney Angel The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s Order Granting the Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure of the Prosecutor’s Handwritten Interview Notes and the Opinions of an individual Prosecutor issued January 17, 2012. On January 27 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Brittney Breann Angel is directed to file a written answer on or before February 27, 2012; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On May 14, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA24.pdf

Apr 2012		11SA51, In Re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV671 (Honorable Charles Pratt) In Re: Plaintiff: Donald Francis Smith, v. Defendants: Michael D. Jeppsen and Virginia S. Benincosa, Intervenor: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Synopsis: Petitioners Michael Jeppsen and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seek relief from the district court’s order that section 10-1-135, C.R.S. applies prospectively to the case and precludes admission of evidence regarding the actual amounts paid for Plaintiff’s’ medical treatments. On March 10, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Donald Francis Smith is directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011. Petitioners have 45 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On Apr 30, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA51.pdf

Apr 2012		11SA250 In Re: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera In Re: Plaintiffs: Linda Willhite and Rex Willhite, v. Defendants: Paulo Rodriguez-Cera and Juan Torres Petitioners Linda and Rex Willhite (the plaintiffs below) seek relief from the district court’s order quashing service of process that determined international service of process should have occurred through the Hague Convention. On September 15, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Paulo Rodriguez-Cera is directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On Apr 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA250.pdf

Apr 2012		11SA224 In Re: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC In Re: Plaintiff: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, v. Respondents: Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. 11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 - In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court’s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011. Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On April 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf

Apr 2012		11SA225 In Re: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC In Re: Plaintiff: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, v. Respondents: Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. 11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 - In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court’s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011. Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On April 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf

Mar 2012		11SA331 - In Re: People v. Tyler R. Wilburn The Petitioner (defendant below), Tyler R. Wilburn, seeks relief from the district court order that in order to present expert evidence at trial concerning the defendant’s mental health disorders, the defendant would be required to submit to a court ordered evaluation pursuant to § 16-8-108, C.R.S. by committing the defendant to CMHIP pursuant to § 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. On November 17, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before December 19, 2011; Petitioner Wilburn has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On March 26, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA331.pdf

Mar 2012		11SA305 In Re: People v. Salazar 11SA305 In Re: People v. Salazar The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s Order Concerning the Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Regarding Specific Instances of Witness’s Prior Sexual Conduct and Request to Introduce Evidence of Alternate Suspect issued October 14, 2011. On October 31, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Yrineo Salazar is directed to file a written answer on or before November 21, 2011; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On March 19, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA305.pdf

Feb 2012		11SA226 - In Re: Peabody Energy Corporation v. Colorado PUC In Re: Plaintiff: Peabody Energy Corporation, v. Respondents: Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. 11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 - In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court’s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011. Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 24, 2012 the court granted a joint motion to Dismiss.

Feb 2012		11SA304 In Re: People v. Workman 11SA304 In Re: People v. Workman The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order denying the People’s request to introduce evidence of prior conduct by the defendant. On November 2, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Michael Workman is directed to file a written answer on or before December 2, 2011; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 16, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.

Feb 2012		11SA77 In Re: Vinton v. Virzi Petitioner Amanda Vinton seeks relief from the probate court’s orders denying Petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Petitioner’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On March 24, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Debra McWilliams, Trustee of the Walter J. Kirkland & Elaine Kirkland Irrevocable Living Trust, and individually, Sharon Virzi, Beneficiary and Walter J. Kirkland & Elaine Kirkland Irrevocable Living Trust are directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 13, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA77.pdf

Feb 2012		11SA82 In Re: Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods, Inc., and Colorado Sun Oil Processing, LLC Petitioners SK Food International and Adams Vegetable Oil Inc.seek relief from the district court’s order enforcing subpoenas, contending that because they are out-of-state entities and not parties to the litigation for which the documents are being sought, the arbitrator and court lack jurisdiction over them; and that the documents contain sensitive commercial data for which defendant SunOpta has not shown a compelling need. On April 12, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents Colorado Sun Oil Processing LLC and SunOpta Grains and Food Inc. are directed to provide a written answer by May 12, 2011; petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 6, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA82.pdf

Jan 2012		11SA248, In Re the Marriage of Brandt and Brandt District Court, Arapahoe County,11DR1312 In re the Marriage of Petitioner: George T. Brandt, v. Respondent: Christine Brandt. Petitioner Christine Brandt (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court’s order re: petition to register foreign decree and assumption of jurisdiction to modify child custody of the parties’ minor child, currently in the care of Respondent George Brandt. On September 2, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, George Brandt is directed to file a written answer on or before September 22, 2011. Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On January 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, order was reversed and the rule made absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA248.pdf

Jan 2012		11SA283 In Re: Curran, et al v. Philadelphia Financial, et al District Court, Boulder Couty, 2009CV907 (Honorable Lael Montgomery) Plaintiffs: Carol B. Curran, et al, v. Defendants: Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al. The Petitioners, Philadelphia…, seek relief from the district court’s order denying their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which sought dismissal of Plaintiffs’ class action claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. On October 18, 2011, the supreme court issue a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, Curran… are directed to file a written answer on or before November 17, 2011. Petitioners have 20 days from the receipt of the answer within which to reply. On January 17, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.

Nov 2011		11SA186 In Re: Westwood College Inc. v. Estes, Jillian District Court, City and County of Denver, 10CV2196 (Honorable Sheila Rappaport) In Re Plaintiffs: Westwood College, Inc. and Alta Colleges, Inc., v. Defendants: Jillian Estes; Chris Hoyer; James Hoyer Newcomer Smiljanich & Yanchunis, PA; Consumer Warning Network; Jameshoyer.com; Westwoodscammed.me; Westwoodsuit.com; Warnings About Westwood College; Laurie Mackenzie; and Jessica Mackenzie. The defendants, Jillian Estes and Chris Hoyer, the law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &Smiljanich, P.A. and Consumer Warning Network, seek relief from the district court order denying their motion to dismiss. They claim that the underlying suit was commenced in retaliation against the defendants for other legal proceedings that have been filed and as such the underlying case is a violation of the litigation privilege and should be dismissed. On July 19, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents Alta Colleges, Inc., and Westwood College, Inc., are directed to file a written answer on or before August 18, 2011; the Petitioners, Jillian Estes and Chris Hoyer, the law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &Smiljanich, P.A. and Consumer Warning Network, have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. Copy of court Order issued November 17, 2011.

Nov 2011		11SA208 - In Re: People v. Hasty In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Jackie Hasty. The defendant, Jackie Hasty, seeks relief from the district court order denying her motion to disqualify the District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District and to appoint a special prosecutor. She claims that the District Attorney has a personal interest and that special circumstances exist that prevent her from receiving a fair trial where a deputy district attorney is a witness to the shooting of a police officer and the District Attorney initiated ex parte communication with the court. On July 27, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief rquested should not be granted. Respondent District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District is directed to file a written answer on or before August 26, 2011; Petitioner Hasty has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 17, 2011 the court issued an order discharging the rule to Show Cause and dismissing the original proceeding.

Nov 2011		11SA66 In Re: Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Petitioner Holly Averyt seeks relief from the district court’s order granting Respondent a new trial. On March 24, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 7, 2011 the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA66.pdf

Nov 2011		10SA373, In Re: Ortega, Ernest v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C. District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV9328, (Honorable William W. Hood III) In Re Plaintiff: Ernest Ortega, v. Defendants: Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C.; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado; and David Lieuwen, M.D. Synopsis: Petitioner Ernest Ortega seeks relief in the nature of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the district court’s orders holding that the physician-patient privilege does not attach to any of his private health information acquired by scores of treating non-party physicians and nurses over a ten-year period. On December 16, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado and David Lieuwen, M.D. are directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2011. Petitioner Earnest Ortega has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 7, 2011 the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA373.pdf

Jun 2011		10SA374, In Re: Moreland/Manoogian, LLC v. Judd, Richard District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV7235, (Honorable Herbert L. Stern, III.) District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV11018 In Re District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV7235, Plaintiffs: Cedar Street Venture, LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company and Montage Project Joint Venture, v. Defendants: Richard D. Judd and Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C., and District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV11018, Plaintiffs: Moreland/Manoogian, LLC and Tamsen Investments, LLC, v. Defendants: Richard D. Judd; Stephen L. Waters; and Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C. Synopsis: Petitioners Richard D. Judd, Stephen L. Waters, and Robinson Waters & O’Dorisio, P.C.seek relief from the district court’s orders requiring Petitioners to produce private financial records and awarding attorneys’ fees. On December 21, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Moreland/Manoogian. LLC and Tamsen Investments, LLC are directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2011. Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA374.pdf

Jun 2011		11SA80, In Re: The Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa 2011SA80, In Re Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa District Court, City and County of Denver, 11DDR851 (Honorable Herbert Stern) In re the Marriage of Petitioner: Mark S. Dedie, v. Respondent: Melissa J. Springston. Synopsis: Petitioner Melissa Springston (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court’s order enforcing an order issued by the New York Supreme Court granting temporary sole custody of the parties’ minor children to Respondent Mark Dedie. On March 18, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Mark S. Dedie (the petitioner below) is directed to file a written answer on or before April 18, 2011. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA80.pdf

Jun 2011		10SA234, In Re: Thomas v. FDIC District Court, Montrose County, 07CV206 (Hon. James W. Schum) In Re Plaintiffs: Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties, Inc., v. Defendants: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver of New Frontier Bank; The Bridges Country Club, Inc.; The Bridges Golf & County Club; Clinton Blum, personal representative of Estate of D.L. Day Jr., a/k/a Larry Day, Jr., a/k/a Delbert L. Day; Black Canyon Golf, LLLP; Brown Financial LLC; Weslin, LLC; Keenan's Industries, Inc.; RJ's Painting, LLC; Ridgway Valley Enterprises, LLC; John Prater, as personal representative for the Estate of James L. Lear; ASAP Rental Sales of Leadville, Inc.; United Rentals Northwest; Robert Beisen-Herz; Downey Excavation, Inc.; Patrik Davis Associates, P.C.; Chuck's Glass, Inc.; Buckhorn Geotech, Inc.; The Bridges at Black Canyon, Inc.; Northstar Bridges, LLC; Leslie Buttorff; Judy Pfountz; MPI/DBS Colorado/Texas LLLP, d/b/a Foothills Lighting & Supply; Richard P. Chulick, as receiver in Montrose District Court Case 07CV49; Rosemary Murphy, as the public trustee of Montrose County, Colorado; First City Corp.; and All Unknown Persons who Claim any interest in the Subject Matter of this Action. Synopsis: Petitioner the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its capacity as Receiver of New Frontier Bank seeks relief from the district court’s order denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, contending that the underlying lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Respondents Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties’ failure to exhaust the mandatory administrative claims review process created by Congress as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. On July 20, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties, Inc. are directed to file a written answer by August 19, 2010. Petitioner FDIC has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA234.pdf

Apr 2011		10SA341, In Re: People v. Ray, Robert District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR697, Honorable Gerald J. Rafferty In Re Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Robert Keith Ray. Synopsis: Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court’s order requiring the prosecution to provide to the court the addresses of protected witnesses in a witness murder case. On November 10, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Robert Keith Ray is directed to file a written answer on or before November 29, 2010. Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On April 25, 2011, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA341.pdf

Apr 2011		10SA325, In re: People v. Williamson, Craig District Court, Arapahoe County, 2009CR234 (Hon. John Wheeler) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Craig Dumene Williamson. Synopsis: Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court’s order allowing the defendant to call witnesses to show that the sexual assault victim had been arrested four times in three years for soliciting prostitution with men other than the defendant. On October 29, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Craig Dumene Williamson is directed to file a written answer by November 30, 2010. Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On April 11, 2011 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA325.pdf

Apr 2011		11SA6, In Re: Fuzell, Frank v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours District Court, City and County of Denver, 10CV5098 (Honorable Michael A. Martinez) In Re Plaintiffs: Frank C. Fuzell and Lois Elizabeth Fuzzell, individually, and as the next friends and parents of Alicia Leigh Fuzzell, a minor and Fuzzell Wholesale Nursery, Inc., v. Defendants: E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company, a Delaware corporation; Terra Industries, Inc., a Maryland corporation; Platte Chemical Company, a Florida corporation; and Foremost Fertilizer Company, a Florida corporation. Synopsis: Petitioner Holland & Hart seeks relief from three orders of the district court denying petitioner’s motion for protective order, clarifying that denial, and granting the motion to compel petitioner’s production of its protected work product. On January 18, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company is directed to file a written answer on or before February 17, 2011. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On April 8, 2011, the Court finds that there is no longer a live controversy before this Court in light of the Florida court order in Fuzzell et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Case No. 97-739, which has precluded causation testimony at trial by plaintiffs' expert Dr. mills. It is ordered that the Order and Rule to Show Cause is dismissed as moot.

Mar 2011		10SA376, In Re: People v. Deanda, Cesar District Court, El Paso County, 95CR1214, (Honorable Deborah L. Grohs) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Cesar Deanda. Synopsis: Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court’s pre-trial order precluding medical experts from offering opinion testimony that the victim’s injuries resulted from child abuse, medical child abuse or non-accidental trauma. On December 16, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Cesar Deanda is directed to file a written answer on or before January 5, 2011. Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On March 25, 2011, the Court ordered that the Rule to Show Cause is made Absolute. The order of the district court is reversed for reconsideration in light of People v. Rector, No. 09SC708 (Colo.March 14, 2011).

Feb 2011		10SA345 In Re: People v. Baharmast, Farzin Traver District Court, Adams County, 10CR1045, (Honorable Frederick Goodbee) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Farzin Traver Baharmast. Synopsis: Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court’s order suppressing scientific test results, ruling that the People were in violation of discovery obligations by not timely disclosing scientific test results that were not yet available. On November 12, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Farzin Traver Baharmast is directed to file a written answer on or before December 13, 2010. Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 25, 2011, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.

Feb 2011		11SA32, In Re: People v. Weeks, Mark District Court, Logan County, 2010CR141 (Hon. Michael K. Singer) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Mark Weeks. Synopsis: Petitioner Mark Weeks seeks relief from the district court’s order compelling petitioner to reveal the password to his cellular phone to the prosecution. On February 17, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent People of State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before March 21, 2011. Petitioner Mark Weeks has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. The supreme court invites the following organizations, or any other interested party, to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter: The Colorado Bar Association Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Colorado District Attorneys’ Council Attorney General’s Office Public Defender’s Office. Any amicus brief is due within the time allotted the party whose position it supports. On February 24, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the original proceeding. 2-24-11 Order

Feb 2011		10SA315,In re: People v. Vlassis, Spiros District Court, Arapahoe County, 2001CR1160 (Hon. John Wheeler) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: Spiros Vlassis. Synopsis: Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for disclosure of prosecutor’s notes and emails, contending that the trial court misapprehended the scope of Crim.P.16 (I)(a)(1)(I) and incorrectly mandated that the prosecution automatically discover the contents of trial preparation discussions between the prosecutor and any witness, regardless of the exculpatory nature of the discussion. On October 13, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Spiros Theodore Vlassis is directed to file a written answer by November 2, 2010. Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On February 22, 2011, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA315.pdf

Nov 2010		10SA146, In re: Glab, Nicole and Julian, Ronald District Court, El Paso County, 09DR1720 (Hon. Barney Iuppa) In Re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning: Brooklyn F. Julian and Kayla D. Julian, Petitioners: Nicole Anne Glab and Jason Glab, and Respondents: Ronald David Julian and Coy Summers Synopsis: Petitioner Ronald D. Julian seeks to have the supreme court vacate the El Paso County District Court’s Order regarding temporary parenting time and to remand the matter back to the district court with instructions that the district court apply the appropriate legal standard when deciding the propriety of any order for parenting time between the Respondents Glabs and the children. Petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion by entering the order. On May 14, 2010, the supreme court ordered that a Rule to Show Cause issue. Respondents Jason Glab and Nicole Anne Glab are directed to answer, in writing on or before June 14, 2010, why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted. Petitioner Ronald David Julian has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 30, 2010 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA146.pdf

Nov 2010		10SA20, In re: Garrigan, Phillip v. Bowen, Philip District Court, Mesa County, 06CV399 (Hon. David Bottger) In Re: Plaintiff: Phillip Garrigan v. Defendant: Philip J. Bowen, M.D. Synopsis: Petitioner Philip J. Bowen, M.D., seeks relief from an order of the Mesa County District Court granting in part plaintiff Garrigan’s motion for discovery violations and striking the proposed trial testimony of Dr. Bowen’s key expert witness in this medical negligence case. Here, the proposed expert witness was the primary author of a 2006 article analyzing data from similar cases; plaintiff sough the underlying research data and documents, which Dr. Bowen argues are not in the expert witness’s possession or control, but rather are in the custody and control of the institution that oversaw the research. The district court here held that because the expert witness reviewed and considered the data when she performed the study, and because she relied in part on the study in forming her opinions in the instant case, she “considered” the underlying data and research documents in forming her opinions in this case and thus the expert witness could not testify unless she provided the underlying research data to the plaintiff. On January 22, 2010, the court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Garrigan is directed to provide a written answer on or before February 22, 2010. Dr. Bowen has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On Monday, November 22, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA20.pdf

Nov 2010		10SA101, In re: People v. Baltazar District Court, El Paso County, 09CR3824 (Hon. Deborah Grohs) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Theresa Yvette Baltazar. Synopsis: The People of the State of Colorado seek relief from the district court’s order allowing counsel for the respondent to issue subpoenas duces tecum on an ex parte basis, without complying with the requirements of Cri. P. 17(c). On April 22, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Theresa Baltazar is directed to file a written answer by May 21, 2010. The People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 8, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA101.pdf

Nov 2010		10SA239, In re: People v. Halprin District Court, Pueblo County, 97CR1412 (Hon. Victor Reyes) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Arthur Henry Halprin. Synopsis: Arthur Halprin seeks relief from the district court’s order finding denying his motion alleging that he has completed the probationary period originally imposed in 1999 and requesting termination of probation. On July 21, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The People are directed to file a written answer on or before August 10, 2010. Halprin has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On November 5, 2010 the Supreme Court issued an order making the rule absolute and discharging petitioner from probation.

Nov 2010		10SA320, In re the Marriage of: Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld District Court, Boulder County, 10DR511 (Hon. James Klein) In re the Marriage of Petitioner: Kathleen A. Rosenfeld, and Respondent: Alan David Rosenfeld. Synopsis: Petitioner Alan David Rosenfeld seeks relief from the district court’s order providing for the suspension of father’s parenting time with the children as a sanction for nonpayment of ordered fees to a third party provider. On October 18, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Honorable James C. Klein is directed to file a written answer by November 4, 2010. Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On October 28, 2010 Judge Klein answered the Order and Rule to Show Cause. On November 1, 2010 the supreme court discharged the rule and dismissed the original proceeding as moot.

Oct 2010		10SA161, In re the Marriage of: Hall and Hall District Court, Pueblo County, 09DR1010 (Hon. Victor Reyes) In re the Marriage of: Petitioner: Angela Hall, and Respondent: Bradley Hall. Synopsis: Petitioner Angela Hall seeks relief from the district court’s order denying her Motion for Appointment of Impartial Licensed Mental Health Professional and for Evaluation and Report in this dissolution of marriage action in which the parties are litigating allocation of parental time and responsibility. On May 26, 2010, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Bradley Hall is directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2010. Petitioner Angela Hall has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On October 25, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/OCT.25.101.pdf

Oct 2010		10SA164, In re: People v. McKeel District Court, El Paso County, 09CR4595 (Hon. Deborah Grohs) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Todd McKeel. Synopsis: The People of the State of Colorado seek relief from the district court’s order granting Todd McKeel’s motion for a bench trial over the People’s objection. On May 27, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent McKeel is directed to file a written answer by June 28, 2010; the People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On October 18, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA164.pdf

Sep 2010		10SA244, In re: Morales-Perez v. CDOC, Parole Division District Court, Arapahoe County, 10CV264 (Hon. Christopher Cross) In Re Petitioner: Roberto M. Morales-Perez, v. Respondents: Colorado Department of Corrections, Parole Division, by and through the Executive Director, Jeaneene Miller, and Director of Corrections and Grayson Robinson, Sheriff of the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado. Synopsis: Morales-Perez seeks relief from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas, without a hearing. Morales-Perez claimed had been held on a parole violation for over 500 days without a hearing. The district court found that 17-2-103.5 provides, in pertinent part, that the parole hearing shall be delayed until felony charges are resolved, and concluded that Morales-Perez could not be entitled to release pending the hearing. On July 23, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Division is directed to file a written answer on or before August 12, 2010. Morales-Perez has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On September 23, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule and dismissing the case. The matter was returned to the Arapahoe County District Court.

Sep 2010		10SA30, In re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV671 (Hon. Charles Pratt) In Re: Plaintiff: Donald Francis Smith, v. Defendant: Michael D. Jeppsen and Virginia S. Benincosa. Synopsis: Petitioner Donald Francis Smith seeks a rule to show cause ordering the trial court to allow him to assert his claim for medical expenses based upon the vale of services provided to him – i.e., the amount billed by his treatment providers, rather than the amount paid, which is the same issue raised in Tucker v. Volunteers of America, 09SC20. On February 4, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Michael Jeppsen is directed to provide a written answer on or before March 1, 2010.Petitioner Smith is directed to reply by March 29, 2010. Oral argument will be held on April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. On June 4, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to file simultaneous Supplemental Opening Briefs addressing the impact, if any, of House Bill 10-1168 no later than June 24, 2010; and following the Opening Briefs simultaneous Supplemental Answer Briefs to be filed no later than July 14, 2010. On September 10, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued. The ruling of the trial court was vacated and the case was remanded to the Arapahoe County District Court to consider the effect, if any, of the amendment to Part 1 of article 1 of title 10, Colorado Revised Stautes, by the addition of new section 10-1-135.

Sep 2010		10SA183, In re: Tidrick v. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County District Court, Jefferson County, 10CV800 (Hon. Christopher Munch) In Re: Plaintiff: Abigal B. Tidrick, v. Defendants: Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado; Associated Industries, Inc., a dissolved Colorado corporation and successor to the Olinger Corporation, a dissolved Colorado corporation and successor to Geo. W. Olinger, Inc., a dissolved Colorado corporation; R. M. Crane, E.B. Dill, and C.T. Flynn as the last acting members of the Board of Directors of Associated Industries, Inc.; Bryan L. Birr; Compass Bank, a Alabama corporation; Colorado Credit Union, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and and all unknown persons who claim any interst in the subject matter of this action. Synopsis: Petitioner Bryan L. Birr seeks to compel the Respondent District Court to allow the petitioner to file his answer and counterclaims without the payment of filing fees or other costs associated with the prosecution and defense of his claims or, in the alternative, to prohibit the district court from considering home equity in a remanded determination of indigency. On June 16, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered that a Rule to Show Cause issue. Respondents Honorable Christopher J. Munch and Abigal B. Tidrick are directed to answer, in writing, on or before July 16, 2010, why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted. Petitioner Bryan L. Birr has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On September 9, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing the case with leave to refile another petition after additional information is submitted to the Jefferson County District Court and the district court reconsiders the indigency determination.

Jul 2010		10SA177, In re: Fesmire v. Haddonstone District Court, Pueblo County, 08CV886 (Hon. Larry Schwartz) In Re: Plaintiffs: Louis M. Fesmire and Laurie J. Fesmire, v. Defendants: Haddonstone (USA) Ltd., a Colorado corporation and Christopher Fenwick. Synopsis: Haddonstone (USA) LTD.seeks relief from the district court’s order finding that Louis Fesmire, a member of Fesmire LLC, a limited liability company, was not in the employ of Haddonstone, for whom Fesmire LLC had contracted to perform services, and therefore is not limited to $15,000 damages pursuant to C.R.S. 8-41-401(3). On June 9, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Louis Fesmire is directed to file a written answer by July 9, 2010. Haddonstone has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On July 12, 2010, the petitioner filed a Notice of Resolution. On July 20, 2010, the supreme court discharged the rule, dismissed the original proceeding and returned the matter to the Pueblo County District Court.

Jun 2010		10SA58, In re: The Foundation for Knowledge v. Interactive Design District Court, Arapahoe County, 09CV2525 (Hon. Marilyn Antrim) In re: Plaintiff: The Foundation for Knowledge in Development d/b/a Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation, a Colorado 501(c)(3) Public Charity, v. Defendants: Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation, and Rick DiNobile. Synopsis: Petitioners Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation, and Rick Di Nobile, seek relief from the district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; they seek a ruling that, as citizens of Rhode Island, they have insufficient contacts with Colorado to subject them to jurisdiction in this forum. On February 24, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent, The Foundation for Knowledge in Development d/b/a Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation, is directed to provide a written answer by March 26, 2010. petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 28, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion affirming the order. The opinion can be found at:http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/JUN.28.10.pdf

Jun 2010		10SA34, In re: Radil, Jennifer v. National Union Fire District Court, Park County, 01CV81 (Hon. Stephen Groome) In Re: Counterclaim-Plaintiff: Jennifer Radil, v. Counterclaim-Defendant: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA. Synopsis: Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Company seeks relief from the Park County district court’s order to compel arbitration and finding that whether Respondent Jennifer Radil waived her right to arbitrate is an arbitrable issue. On February 8, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Radil is directed to provide a written answer by March 10, 2010; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 28, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute in part and discharging the rule in part. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA34.pdf

Jun 2010		10SA39, In re: People v. Hamm, Norman County Court, City and County of Denver, 09GS184264 (Hon. Clarisse Gonzales) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. DefendantL Norman Hamm. Synopsis: In the underlying case, Norman Hamm is charged with committing crimes against the victim, R.T., who was treated as a patient at St. Anthony Hospital, which is operated and managed by Petitioner Centura Health Corporation. Petitioner seeks relief from a subpoena issued by the Denver County Court ordering St. Anthony to produce R.T.’s medical records without first properly addressing and resolving with R.T. the issue of provider/patient privilege. On February 8, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents the Hon. Clarisse M. Gonzales and Norman Hamm are directed to provide a written answer on or before March 1, 2020; petitioner Centura health Corporation has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 24, 2010. the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued. The matter was returned to the County Court for the City and County of Denver.

Jun 2010		10SA50, In re the Marriage of: Nutt and Nutt District Court, Douglas County, 07DR51 (Hon. Richard Caschette) In re the Marriage of: Petitioner: Carolyn V. Nutt, and Respondent: Eric W. Nutt. Synopsis: Petitioner Eric Nutt, the father in this post-decree dissolution case, seeks relief from the trial court’s order requiring disclosure of his mental health records and finding that he had impliedly waived privilege by virtue of his motion for modification of parental responsibilities. On February 18, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Carolyn Nutt is directed to provide a written answer by March 22, 1010. petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 24, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause, dismissing the case and returning the case to the Douglas County District Court.

Jun 2010		10SA87, In re: Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek District Court, Water Division 2, 98CW80 (Hon. Dennis Maes) In Re Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Cherokee Metropolitan District: Petitioner: Cherokee Metropolitan District, v. Respondents: Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer for the State of Colorado; Steve Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2; and Colorado Ground Water Management Commission. Synopsis: Petitioner Cherokee Metropolitan District seeks relief from an order of the water court denying its motion to dismiss Respondent Upper Black Squirrel’s motion for a declaratory judgment. Cherokee contends that the water court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the interpretation of a contract between it and UBS since contract interpretations is not a water matter pursuant to section 37-92-203(1), C.R.S., and no water matter in the case is currently pending before the water court allowing it to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the contract matter. On April 1, 2010, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer for the State of Colorado; Steve Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2; and Colorado Ground Water Commission are directed to provide a written answer on or before May 3, 2010. Petitioner Cherokee has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to file a reply. On June 24, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause, and dismissing the case. The matter was returned to the district court for Water Division 2.

Jun 2010		09SA91, In re: People v. Spykstra District Court, Park County (Hon. Stephen A. Groome) In re: The People of the State of Colorado v. Malinda E. Spykstra Synopsis: Petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, requested that the court issue a rule to show cause why the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant Malinda E. Spykstra's request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum requiring the named victim in the underlying sexual assault case and her parents to allow defendant's expert into the parents' home to inpsect their computers and to produce personal emails between the victim and her parents. On April 24, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Spykstra is directed to provide a written answer on or before May 26, 2009. The People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. The court has solicited amicus briefs in this case. On June 21, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA91.pdf

Jun 2010		09SA216, In re the Marriage of: Weis v. Weis District Court, El Paso County, 05DR3992 (Hon. Jann DuBois) In Re the Marriage of: Petitioner: Craig Weis, v. Respondent: Melanie Weis, n/k/a Melanie Bergeron. Synopsis: Petitioner Melanie Bergeron seeks relief from the El Paso County Court's order holding her in county jail pursuant to a contempt order for her failure to pay certain debts that petitioner contends were subject to an automatic stay of the bankruptcy code. On August 10, 2009, the supreme court ordered that petitioner should be released from jail. It further issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. respondents the Honorable Jann DuBois and Craig Weis are directed to provide a written answer on or before August 31. Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 7, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA216.pdf

May 2010		10SA128, In re: People v. Perez, Jorge District Court, El Paso County, 09CR3868 (Hon. Deborah Grohs) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Jorge Perez. Synopsis: The Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) seeks relief from an order of the district court to show cause why its order to release the identity of a confidential informant in a criminal case should not be reversed. On May 6, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Jorge Perez is directed to file a written answer by June 7, 2010. Petitioner CSPD has thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On May 21, 2010, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 24, 2010, the supreme court dismissed the original proceeding and returned the matter to the El Paso County District Court.

May 2010		09SA350, In re: People v. C.J. Day District Court, Mesa County, 08CR956 (Hon. Richard Gurley) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: C.J. Day Synopsis: Petitioner C.J. Day seeks relief from two rulings of the Mesa County District Court in this sexual assault on a child prosecution. He contends that the court applied an enhanced sentence where he was acquitted of the predicate offenses, thereby changing in effect the statutory elements required for a pattern of abuse sentence enhancer. Specifically, he argues that the court erred in sentencing him according to the guidelines set for pattern of abuse where he was only found guilty of two counts of attempted sexual assault on a child. On December 7, 2009, the supreme court issued an order and rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to provide a written answer on or before January 4, 2010. petitioner Day has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On May 10, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA350.pdf

May 2010		10SA75, In re: People v. Owens, Sir Mario District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR705 (Hon. Gerald Rafferty) In re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: Sir Mario Owens Synopsis: Petitioner Sir Mario Owens sought relief from a trial court order finding that it could only grant extensions of time “until such point in time as would allow this [district] court to consider and rule on the [post-conviction] motion,” which represented a departure from its previous order finding authority to grant extensions of time for the filing of post-conviction motions provided Owens demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, even if such extensions took the post-conviction process beyond the two-year period contemplated in section 16-12-208(3), C.R.S. Owens asks the court to incorporate review of the second order into its ongoing review of the first order. On March 19, 2010, the supreme court granted the petition. No additional briefing is requested. The automatic stay is lifted in whole. On May 6, 2010, the supreme court issued an order dismissing the case.

Jan 2010		09SA257, In re: Rocky Mountain Bank v. France Certification of Question of State Law, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, 09-16609-SBB In re: Rocky Mountain Bank, Movant, v. Carl Nelson France and Jamie H. France, Debtors, and Douglas E. Larson, Trustee. Synopsis: On September 10, 2009, the supreme court accepted the following certified question of law from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado: Whether a financing statement, which identifies the individual debtor's correct first and last name, only, but does not include the debtor's middle initial or middle name and thereby does not indetify the debtor's full legal name, sufficiently provides the name of the debtor consistent with Colo. Rev. Stat. section 4-9-503(a)(4)(A) so as to establish a perfected and enforceable secured claim. The Trustee's opening brief is due on or before October 13, 2009. The Bank's answer brief shall be filed within 30 days from receipt of the opening brief. The Trustee's reply brief may be filed within 14 days from receipt of the answer brief. On January 20, 2010 the Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss. On January 22, 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the Certification of Question of Law.

Jan 2010		09SA144, In re: Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties District Court, Eagle County, (Hon. Robert Moorhead) In Re: Plaintiff: Goodman Associates, LLC, v. Defendant: WP Mountain Properties, LLC. Synopsis: Petitioner Goodman Associates, LLC seeks relief from the Eagle County District Court's order setting aside the default judgment it previously had granted in favor of Goodman Associates and against WP Mountain Properties, LLC. On June 17, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent WP Mountain Properties is directed to provide a written answer on or before July 7, 2009. Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On January 11, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA144.pdf

Jan 2010		09SA282, In re: People v. Almeyda, Edwin District Court, El Paso County, 87CR1417 (Hon. Deborah Grohs) District Court, Fremont County, 88CR137 & 88CR81 (Hon. Julie Marshall) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: Edwin G. Almeyda Synopsis: Petitioner Edwin Almeyda seeks an order to show cause why his sentences in two Fremont County cases should not be declared fully served. Almeyda was convicted in 1988 in three separate matters -- two in Fremont County and one in El Paso County. Pursuant to section 17-22.5-101, C.R.S., the DOC construed the sentences as one continuous 31 year sentence. In March 2001, he was granted parole, and in March 2003 parole was revoked. Almeyda argues, and the El Paso District Court found, that he could not be reincarcerated for more than 5 years, and that he has served his sentences in full. On September 30, 2009, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Mary Carlson, Director of CDOC Time and Release Operations, is directed to provide a written answer on or before October 30, 2009 why the requested relief should not be granted. Almeyda has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On January 11, 2010, the supreme court issued an order making the rule absolute; ordering the Director of the Department of Corrections CDOC Time and Release Operations to correct her records to indicate that all of the sentences are considered fully served and discharged and to notify all state, local agencies and officials.

Dec 2009		09SA280, In re: People v. Ray, Robert District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR697 (Hon. Gerald Rafferty) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: Robert Keith Ray Synopsis: Petitioner Robert Keith Ray seeks issuance of a stay in this death penalty case until the court rules in People v. Sir Mario Owens, 08SA402, and an order instructing the district court to allow the time permitted by Crim. P. 32.2 to file any post-trial motions. Specifically, he requests that imposition of a death sentence, which triggers the statutory non-extendable two year deadline for completing all postconviction and appellate litigation pursuant to section 16-12-208, C.R.S., should be stayed here until the court determines in the Owens matter whether the "no extension" provision of the two-year deadline is constitutional. He also requests the supreme court to determine whether Judge Rafferty's ruling in the Owens case that the "no extensions" provision of the Unitary Review System is unconstitutional comepls him to formally enter the same ruling in his matter. Finally, he asks the supreme court to determine whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction when it made motions for new trial due two weeks prior to sentencing even though Crim P. 32.2 provides that the defendant may file such motions no later than 15 days after the imposition of a sentence. On September 30, 2009, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief shold not be granted. Respondent The Honorable Gerald J. Rafferty and the People of the State of Colorado are directed to provide a written answer on or before October 30, 2009. Petitioner Ray has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On December 14, 2009, the Supreme Court Dismissed as having been improvidently Granted.

Dec 2009		09SA247, In re: People v. Shirley, Darin District Court, Broomfield County, 08CR115 (Hon. John Popovich Jr.) In Re: Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. Defendant: Darin Robert Shirley Synopsis: The People seek relief from the district court's order in this aggravated incest case that their endorsed and subpoenaed expert witness could not testify in the People's case in chief, but only as a rebuttal witness, and only after an offer of proof to determine whether the testimony is rebuttal. On August 31, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested releief should not be granted. Respondent Darin Shirley is directed to provide a written answer on or before September 30, 2009. The People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On December 10, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order vacating the limitation the district court imposed upon the testimony of the prosecution’s expert. Dr. Varley. The Court also vacated the district court’s sanction order. The matter was returned to the Broomfield County District Court and the Rule Made Absolute.

Nov 2009		09SA182, In re: People v. Nichelson, Johnathan District Court, Adams County, 08CR3568 (Hon. Mark Warner) In Re: The People of the State of Colorado v. Johnathan Nichelson Synopsis: Nichelson seeks relief from an order of the Adam County District Court holding that it was not vested with the power to restore Nichelson’s right to a preliminary hearing after the case had been bound over from Adams County Court. Thus, the District Court did not determine whether Nichelson’s waiver of preliminary hearing in county court was rendered ineffective when a plea offer was subsequently withdrawn. On July 17, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the relief should not be granted. The People of the State of Colorado are directed to file an answer on or before August 6, 2009. Nichelson has 20 days thereafter within which to reply. On November 09, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA182.pdf

Oct 2009		09SA179, In re: People v. Medina, Delano District Court, Douglas County, 05CR435 (Hon. Nancy Hopf) In Re: The People of the State of Colorado v. Medina, Delano Synopsis: Petitioner Delano Medina seeks to compel Respondent the Department of Corrections to comply with the sentencing mittimus, which grants petitioner 325 days of presentence confinement time credit, rather than the 155 days the DOC is granting him. On July 15, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The respondent is directed to provide a written answer on or before August 14; the petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued and returned the matter to the Douglas County District Court.

Oct 2009		09SA262, In re: Forsythe, Lynne v. Bell, Charlie District Court, Larimer County, 08CV485 (Hon. Jolene Blair) In Re: Plaintiff: Lynne Forsythe v. Defendant: Charlie Bell Synopsis: Petitioner Lynne Forsythe seeks relief from the trial court's pretrial ruling imposing sanctions against her and precluding her treating neurosurgeon from testifying at trial regarding the causation of her accident-related injuries and the need for recommended decompressive brain surgery. On September 16, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Charlie Bell is directed to provide a written answer on or before October 6, 2009 why the relief requested should not be granted. Petitioner Forsythe has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On October 13, 2009 the Supreme Court received a stipulated motion to discharge the order and rule to show cause. On October 15, 2009 the stipulated motion was granted and the rule was discharged. The matter was returned to the Larimer County District Court.

Sep 2009		09SA22, In re: People in the Interest of A.H. District Court, El Paso County, 2008JV184 (Judge Thomas L. Kennedy) In Re: The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of A.H., Petitioner: El Paso County Department of Social Services, and Concerning Respondents: A.P., G.H., R.H., and G.H. Synopsis: G.H. seeks relief from an order of the Juvenile Court adjudicating the child dependent and neglected, and continuing the removal of the child from his home, based on an admission by A.P. that the child is neglected "through no fault" of hers and notwithstanding a jury determination that there was insufficient evidence that G.H. neglected the child. On January 30, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief should not be granted. The El Paso Department of Human Services, the Guardian ad Litem, and A.P. are directed to file an answer on or before February 19, 2009. G.H. has 15 days within which to reply. On September 14, 2009, the court issued an opinion discharging the rule. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA22.pdf

Sep 2009		09SA164, In re: Carl and Linda Curtis v. Doris Stokes District Court, El Paso County (Hon. Thomas Kane) In Re: Plaintiffs: Carl Curtis and Linda Curtis v. Defendant: Doris P. Stokes. Synopsis: Petitioners Carl and Linda Curtis seek relief from the trial court's orders denying their motion to amend the complaint to add exemplary damages and compelling the unrelated medical records of plaintiff Carl Curtis because the plaintiffs made a large claim for loss of essential services to their disabled child in this case arising out of a head-on collision between Mr. Curtis and Defendant Doris Stokes. On June 26, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Doris Stokes is directed to provide a written answer on or before July 16, 2009. Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On September 10, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued and returned the matter to the El Paso County District Court.

Jun 2009		09SA19, In re: Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker District Court, City and County of Denver, 2008CV792 (Judge Herbert L. Stern III) Plaintiff: Marcia Pinkstaff, v. Defendants: Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. and Baldwin Hardware Corporation Synopsis: Petitioners Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Baldwin Hardware Corporation, along with Steven M. Gutierrez, counsel for the defendant companies, seek relief from the district court's order striking their answer. Petitioners contend that the order was an abuse of discretion and that it was based on inaccurate information, an inappropriately harsh sanction not commensurate with the alleged improper conduct and disproprotionate to the prejudice, if any, caused to the other party, and an unfair reward to the also-culpable other party. They request reversal of the district court's order. On January 22, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents Marcia Pinkstaff and the Honorable Connie Peterson are directed to provide a written answer on or before February 23, 2009. Petitioners have thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On June 29, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA19.pdf

Jun 2009		09SA16, In re: People v. Ruch District Court, Douglas County, 07CR675 (Judge Paul A. King) Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Carl Daniel Ruch. Synopsis: Petitioner Carl Ruch seeks relief from the district court's order remanding him to custody following his conviction on a class five felony stalking violation until such time as Mr. Ruch agrees to sign a waiver of confidentiality that the probation department requires in order to complete its presentence investigation. Mr. Ruch contends that the order forces him to waive his federal privacy rights and is unlawful because it is not reasonably necessary to accomplish preparation of the presentence report of a psychosexual evaluation, and is not otherwise supported by law. He requests that the order remanding him to the custody of the sheriff's department be vacated, and that the court order his release and reinstate his bond pending resolution of the action. On January 29, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents, the Honroable Paul King, the Arapahoe County District Attorney's Office, and the 18th Judicial District Probation Department, are directed to provide a written answe ron or before February 12, 2009 why the requested relief should not be granted. Petitioner Ruch has ten days from receipt of the asnwer within which to reply. The court further reversed the order remanding Ruch to the custody of the sheriff's department, and directed that upon consent of surety the previous bond shall be reinstated with all prior conditions imposed, at which time the sheriff's department shall release petitioner. The court ordered that the mandatory protection order pursuant to 18-1-1001, C.R.S., remains in effect. On June 25, 2009, the supreme court issued an order making the rule absolute and the order of the district court remanding the defendant to the custody of the sheriff without bond be vacated for the reason that a refusal to sign a waiver of rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996 (HIPPA) is not a lawful ground for discontinuing bail after a person is convicted, pending sentencing or appeal.

May 2009		09SA59, In re: People v. Body District Court, City and County of Denver, 90CR799 (Judge Michael A. Martinez) In re: The People of the State of Colorado v. Kenneth Lee Body, Jr. Synopsis: Kenneth Lee Body, Jr. requests that the Colorado Department of Corrections be compelled to award him earned-time credit for the last eighteen years that he has served. He contends that the DOC has improperly withheld the credit based on its erroneous interpretation of the governing statute. On March 19, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondents the DOC and the Denver District Attorney's Office are directed to file a written answer no later than April 8, 2009 why the relief requested should not be granted. Petitioner Mr. Body has twenty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On May 28, 2009 the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued.

May 2009		09SA5, In re: Berry v. Keltner Larimer County District Court Case No. 07CV743 (Judge Jolene Blair) Plaintiff: Michelle K. Berry v. Defendant: Jennifer Keltner Synopsis: Petitioner Michelle Berry seeks relief from the trial court's order denying her motion for leave to endorse her treating physician as an expert witness in this personal injury case. berry contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to prohibit her from endorsing, as an expert witness, a treating physician who began treating her after the expert disclosure deadline, and who therefore was endorsed after the expert disclosure deadline, but before the discovery cut-off date. On January 14, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Jennifer Keltner is directed to provide a written answer on or before February 3, 2009. Petitioner Berry has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. On May 26, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The Opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA5.pdf