| Original Proceedings Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 in the Colorado Supreme Court |
Click on the plus icon to see the full summary of a particular case.
23SA227 In Re People v. Howell, Joseph (Honorable Adam Espinosa)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 31, 2023.
On September 11, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss under the force-against-intruders statute. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 9, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA220 In Re People v. Phillips, Khristina (Honorable Steven Katzman)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 18, 2023, and August 25, 2023.
On September 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the respondent filed an interlocutory appeal in good faith, meaning the petitioner’s speedy trial right was tolled during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA209 In Re: People v. Mark Burns (Honorable Steven Schultz)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 17, 2023.
On August 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to provide disclosures regarding his alternate-suspect defense forty-two days prior to trial. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 13, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA186 In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC (Honorable Sean Finn)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 3, 2023.
On August 4, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s claims for negligence and negligence per se in light of liability waivers. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before September 1, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA167 - In Re the Marriage of Green, Barbara and Green, Jeffry - (Honorable Christine Antoun)The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of June 13, 2023.
On July 6, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before August 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA146 In Re GHP Horwarth, P.C. v. Kazazian, NinaThe petitioners seek an order from the Supreme Court enjoining the respondent “from ever proceeding pro se as a proponent of any claim or other request for relief, including the filing of papers and making court appearances, whether acting individually or on behalf of a trust, company or other entity, in any pending or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado.” On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the petitioners’ requested relief should not be granted. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before July 6, 2023. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA140, In Re: People v. James Dye (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 4, 2023.
On June 7, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to disclose the nature of his alternate suspect defense forty-five days before trial. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 5, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA131 In Re People in the interest of Minor Child C.J.T. (Honorable Charles Hobbs)The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of March 27, 2023.
On May 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting a non-party access to unredacted records. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 27, 2023. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA133, In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Marie Moses)The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of April 13, 2023.
On May 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the respondents to only post a supersedeas bond of $25 million, rather than 125% of the judgment. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 21, 2023. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply
23SA126 in Re People in the Interest of Minor Children J.P. (Honorable Justin Haenlein)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 7, 2023.
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to turn over potentially privileged documents for in camera review. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2023. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA125, In Re: People v. Walthour, Ashleigh (Honorable Joshua Williford)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 7, 2023.
On May 12, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in suppressing the results of an impending blood test because it hadn’t been completed by the court’s prior deadline. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 9, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
23SA111 In Re: People v. Tippet, Joseph (Honorable Michael Meyrick)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 4, 2023.
On May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in reducing the defendant’s charges in light of discovery violations prior to the preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 24, 2023. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
23SA12 In Re People v. Seymour, Gavin (Honorable Martin Egelhoff)The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's Order of November 16, 2022.
On January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress. The respondents are directed to file a written Answer on or before February 14, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the Answer within which to Reply.
23SA91 In Re Edwards, Tana v. New Century Hospice (Honorable Mark Bailey) Sep 2023The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of December 19, 2022.
On April 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for negligent supervision. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 1, 2023. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued September 25, 2023
23SA105 In Re People v. Burkhalter, Bryan (Honorable Nancy Salomone) Jul 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of March 13, 2023, and April 20, 2023.
On April 21, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to admit rape shield evidence. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 19, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued July 14, 2023
23SA148 In Re Hollaway, Brian (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler) Jul 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 18, 2023.
On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for excessive confinement in violation of section 16-8.5-116(1). The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
Order issued July 10, 2023
23SA149 In Re Hollaway, Brian (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler) Jul 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 18, 2023.
On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for excessive confinement in violation of section 16-8.5-116(1). The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
Order issued July 10, 2023
23SA102 In Re People v. Qu, Richard (Honorable Kelly Lafave) Jun 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 14, 2023.
On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 22, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued on June 30, 2023
23SA2 In Re Smith, Jerrelle v. People (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski) Jun 2023On January 6, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying bond to the defendant. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued 6/20/23
22SA874 In Re People v. Kelley, Noelle (Honorable Eric White) Jun 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 23, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) permitting the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant refused to waive her privilege, and (2) ruling that the defendant waived her privilege. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.t
Opinion issued on June 5, 2023
23SA81 In Re Elliott, Winthrop v. Doordash (Honorable Elizabeth Volz) May 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of February 24, 2023, and March 9, 2023.
On March 14, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering the petitioner to produce certain documents in discovery. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 11, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order of Court Rule Discharged
23SA30 In Re People v. Jacob Woodside (Honorable John Briggs) May 2023On January 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant’s guilty plea in this case would constitute a second offense. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 22, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued May 22, 2023
23SA34 In Re: Arvada Village Gardens v. Ana Garate (Honorable Sara Garrido) May 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 20, 2023.
On January 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and finding that the notice requirement in the CARES Act had expired. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 24, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued May 15, 2023
23SA63 In Re the Marriage of Webb-Galarza and Strong, Jason (Honorable Jacob Edson) May 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of February 16, 2023.
On March 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in vacating the scheduled hearing, ordering mediation, and not otherwise acting on the petitioner’s requests for parenting time. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 31, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA63.pdfOrder making rule absolute issued May 12, 2023
22SA323 In Re People in the Interest of A.C. (Honorable Jayne Candea-Ramsey) Apr 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of August 5, 2022.
On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a magistrate’s finding that an individual had been restored to competency. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 2, 2022. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued April 25, 2023
22SA384 In Re People v. Platteel, Evan (Honorable Thomas Mulvahill & Zachary Malkinson) Apr 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 15, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the victim to testify at the defendant’s preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued April 24, 2023
22SA388 In Re People v. Maez, Christopher (Honorable Jeffrey WIlson) Feb 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of November 1, 2022.
On December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the Sheriff's Department to disclose certain video recordings to the prosecution. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 4, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued February 28, 2023
22SA348 In Re People v. Justice James (Honorable Allison Ernst) Feb 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 17, 2022, and September 23, 2022.
On October 27, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering mediation. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued February 27, 2023
22SA347 In Re People v. Justice, James (Honorable Allison Ernst) Feb 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 17, 2022, and September 23, 2022.
On October 28, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering mediation. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued February 27, 2023
22SA383 In Re People v. Saville, Alan (Honorable Jay Grant) Feb 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 10, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in precluding the opinion of an expert witness for the defendant. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued February 17, 2023
23SA7 In Re People v Speed, Cori (Honorable Ben Leutwyler) Feb 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 21, 2022.
On January 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a restorability hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 21, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
This matter was dismissed at the request of parties on February 15, 2023.
22SA172, In Re People v. Kembel, Timothy (Honorable Sarah Cure) Jan 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of March 9, 2022, and May 10, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for a bifurcated trial. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued January 30, 2023
22SA173, In Re People v. Dexter, Kerrie (Honorable Sarah Cure) Jan 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of May 10, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for a bifurcated trial. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
22SA272 In Re People v. Hacke, Jonn (Honorable Amiel Markenson) Jan 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 26, 2022.
On August 19, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 16, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued January 30, 2023
22SA282 In Re People in the interest of L.S. (Honorable Don Toussaint) Jan 2023The petitioners seek relief from the juvenile court’s order of July 28, 2022.
On September 1, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the juvenile court did not err in granting Mother’s motion for a directed verdict. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2022. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued January 23, 2023
22SA264 In Re McMichael, Patricia v Encompass (Honorable Patrick Butler) Jan 2023The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s orders of June 30, 2022, and July 27, 2022.
On August 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) setting aside the default judgment, and (2) granting the defendant’s motion to change venue. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 13, 2022. The petitioners have 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued January 9, 2023
22SA195 In Re Nelson, Floyd v. Encompass (Honorable Andrew Hartman) Jan 2023The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of May 27, 2022.
On June 14, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for change of venue. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 12, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued January 9, 2023
22SA290 In Re People v. Knisley, Belinda (Honorable Paul Dunkelman) Dec 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 15, 2022, and September 2, 2022.
On September 7, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) denying the petitioner’s motion to quash a subpoena requiring him to sit for a deposition, and (2) denying the petitioner’s motion for a protective order. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 5, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued December 19, 2022
22SA256 In Re Adams County v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Mark Warner) Oct 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 1, 2022.
On August 10, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to require the plaintiff to appropriate funds to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 7, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply..
Court order issued October 10, 2022
22SA73, In re: Interest of A.C. (Honorable Audrey Galloway) Oct 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of January 13, 2022.
On April 1, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s order requiring the petitioner to undergo a reassessment evaluation. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 29, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued October 4, 2022
22SA207 In Re People v. Wright, Calvin (Honorable Jessica Curtis) Sep 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of December 27, 2021, and February 4, 2022.
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner waived their right to a preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued September 30, 2022
22SA71, Interest of A.S.M. (Honorable Beth Elliott-Dumler) Sep 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the district court's order of February 4, 2022.
On April 4, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in finding that it couldn't review the magistrate's order because it lacked jurisdiction. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 2, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued September 26, 2022
22SA108, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff) Sep 2022The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of January 13, 2022.
On May 3, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 31, 2022. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued September 26, 2022
22SA111, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff) Sep 2022The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of January 13, 2022.
On May 3, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 31, 2022. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued September 26, 2022
22SA171, In Re the Marriage of Weber (Honorable Abbey De Boyes & Joel Schaefer) Aug 2022The petitioner seeks relief from both the magistrate’s order of February 11, 2021, and the district court’s order of April 28, 2022.
On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why (1) the magistrate did not err in modifying parenting time, and (2) the district court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for a mediation exemption. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued August 11, 2022
22SA31 In Re the Parental Responsibilities of E.K. (Honorable Cynthia Dianne Mares) Jun 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 3, 2022.
On February 11, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for lack of standing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 11, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA383 In Re People in the Interest of S.A. (Groome, Stephen Honorable) Jun 2022On December 30, 2021 the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering therapeutic visitation between the subject of the dependency and neglect proceeding and his younger siblings, who are not subject to the dependency and neglect proceeding. The Court directs respondents to limit their briefing to whether the trial court has jurisdiction to enter this order. Respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 13, 2022. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
22SA6 In Re: People in interest of A.P. (Honorable Don Toussaint) Jun 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of December 13, 2021
On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondents relief from the prior adjudiciation and dispositional orders. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 9, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
22SA122, In Re DIA Brewing v. MCE-DIA (Honorble Darryl Shockley) Jun 2022
The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of May 1, 2022.
On May 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2022. The petitioner has 5 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order 6-3-22 Made Absolute
21SA308 In Re People v Cortes-Gonzalez, Jared (Honorable Timothy Kerns) Mar 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of June 5, 2021, and September 29, 2021.
On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) finding that the defendant had waived attorney-client privilege, and (2) ordering the Public Defender’s Office to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 19, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued on March 21, 2022
21SA370 In Re In the Interest of A.M.K. (Hon. Sara Price) Mar 2022On December 14, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the magistrate did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 11, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued March 18, 2022
21SA350 In Re People v. Sanchez, Veronica (Honorable Allison Esser) Mar 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 29, 2021.
On November 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to make either a pretrial disclosure or an offer of proof regarding her planned alternate suspect defense. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 20, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA381 In Re: Adams County Board v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Jeffrey Smith) Feb 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the magistrate’s order of December 15, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in partially denying the petitioner’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2022. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued February 17, 2022
21SA286 In Re People v. Greer, Nicholas (Hon. Joshua Williford) Jan 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of August 2, 2021, and August 30, 2021.
On September 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner does not qualify for representation by the Public Defender. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 20, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued on January 31, 2022
21SA290 In Re People v. Watkins, Cassidy (Honorable Joseph Whitfield) Jan 2022The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of July 21, 2021, and July 23, 2021.
On September 28, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of her mental condition. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 26, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 6, 2022
21SA260 In Re the Marriage of Nicole Flores and Hakiowskie Flores (Honorable Randall C. Arp) Dec 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of August 2, 2021.
On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate’s order denying the petitioner’s emergency motion to enroll his children in school. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 28, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued December 21, 2021
21SA153 In Re People v Viburg, Kevin (Honorable Phillip McNulty) Dec 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of March 11, 2021, and April 30, 2021.
On May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss his felony DUI charge on retrial. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued December 20, 2021
21SA55 In Re Ronquillo, Maribel v Eco Clean (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski) Dec 2021The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of August 4, 2020.
On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding as a matter of law that a lien purchaser is not a collateral source under section 13-21-111.6, C.R.S. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 31, 2021. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued December 20, 2021
21SA273 In Re PacifiCorp v. Cross Mountain (Honorable Sandra Gardner) Dec 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of May 7, 2021, and August 24, 2021.
On September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in staying the petitioner’s condemnation proceeding. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 25, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued on December 2, 2021
21SA354 In Re Jackson, Kylee v McAlonan, Susan (Honorable Frederick Martinez) Nov 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of November 5, 2021, and November 12, 2021.
On November 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to (1) upload unredacted mental health records into the court’s e-filing system under seal, and (2) disclose certain redacted mental health records to the defendant. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 21, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order issued November 30, 2021
21SA276 & 21SA269 In Re BNSF v. Lange, Kenneth (Hon. Todd Taylor) Nov 2021On September 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting immediate possession of real property to the respondent and consolidated this case with Supreme Court Case No. 21SA269. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 15, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. Briefs are to be filed into Case No. 21SA276. No additional documents may be filed into 21SA269.
Court Order issued November 5, 2021
20SA429 In Re Brown, Erica v Long Romero, R.N., Shari (Honorable John Wheeler) Sep 2021The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of December 16, 2020.
On January 4, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 1, 2021. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued on September 27, 2021
21SA147 In Re Francis, Robert v Wegener, Benjamin (Honorable Shelley Gilman) Sep 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 8, 2021.
On May 7, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the respondent should not be enjoined from seeking any affirmative relief while appearing pro se in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued September 13, 2021
21SA85 In Re People v Sherwood, Ian (Honorable Gregory Robert Werner) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 9, 2021.
On March 12, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in calculating the respondent’s speedy trial deadline such that the new trial date falls beyond the deadline. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 9, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA3 In Re People v Sprinkle, Regina (Honorable Chad Miller) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 9, 2020.
On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to provide records in response to a subpoena duces tecum. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA166 In Re the interest of G.A. (Honorable Katherine Delgado) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 12, 2021.
On May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering the minor child to receive all medically recommended and routine childhood vaccinations pursuant to the schedule recommended by her pediatrician. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021. The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA87 In Re Winninger, Lindsay v Kirchner, Doris (Honorable Russell Granger) Jun 2021The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s orders of January 20, 2021, and January 25, 2021.
On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause, directing Respondents to answer why (1) the term “theft,” as that term is used in section 18-4-405, C.R.S. (2020), encompasses the theft of medical records or medical information under section 18-4-412(1), C.R.S. (2020), such that Respondents have standing to pursue their civil theft counterclaim in this case; and (2) Respondents’ civil theft counterclaim is not barred by section 18-4-412(5). Respondents are directed to file their written answer on or before April 13, 2021. Petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA375 In Re People v Manaois, Michael (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Ross Buchanan) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 17, 2020, as well as the court of appeals’ opinion of February 6, 2020.
On November 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in vacating the respondent’s guilty plea, along with the court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 7, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA373 In Re People v Lowe, Albert (Honorable Ben Leutwyler) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 21, 2020.
On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the charges for violating his right to be free from double jeopardy. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 8, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA421 In Re People v Coleman, Eric (Honorable Kenneth Laff) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 7, 2020.
On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant’s sentence was illegal. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA422 In Re People v Rainey, Jaylen (Honorable Edward Bronfin) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 13, 2020.
On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant’s sentence was illegal. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA423 In Re People v Keen, Patrick (Honorable Alex Martinez) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 9, 2020.
On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant’s sentence was illegal. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA240 In Re People v Vigil, Delbert (Honorable Eric White) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 15, 2019.
On July 17, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in binding over the charge of first-degree assault and concluding that probable cause existed that the petitioner inflicted serious bodily injury. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 17, 2020. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA322 In Re People v. Hernandez, Juan (Hon. Crespin, Tomee) Jun 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 16, 2020.
On September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the People’s motion to proceed via video testimony. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply
Opinion Issued on June 7, 2021
21SA79, In Re People v Brown, George (Honorable Reed Owens) May 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of January 7, 2021, and January 11, 2021.
On March 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in declaring a mistrial rather than dismissing the case for violation of the petitioner’s speedy trial rights. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 8, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued May 27, 2021
20SA324 In Re People v. Nunez (Hon. Spear, Michael) May 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 29, 2020.
On September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory right to speedy trial. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 19, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued on May 17, 2021
21SA86 In Re Castelan Rizo, Rigoberto v Rodriguez San Miguel, Jose (Honorable Michael Martinez) May 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 8, 2021.
On March 15, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondent’s motion to strike testimony of the petitioner’s treating physician. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 12, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued May 13, 2021
20SA293 In Re People v Moore, Aundre (Honorable Edward Bronfin) May 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 31, 2020.
On September 2, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the prosecution’s motion to exclude evidence in the absence of an insanity plea. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 2, 2020. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
21SA2 In Re Lopez-Morales Francisco v Chavez, Eliana (Honorable Rayna McIntyre) Apr 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 14, 2020.
On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to quash service. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued April 29, 2021
21SA33 In Re People v Sandoval, Edward (Honorable David Goldberg) Apr 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 15, 2021.
On February 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for State pay of expert witnesses and investigator. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 1, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued April 16, 2021
21SA26 In Re Henry, Kevin v Bank of New York (Honorable Timothy Schutz) Apr 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of June 10, 2020.
On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to certify its dismissal order as final and appealable under C.R.C.P. 54(b). The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 22, 2021. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued April 15, 2021
20SA262 In Re People v Subjack, David (Honorable Ramsey Lama) Feb 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 13, 2020.
On July 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 28, 2020. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued on February 8, 2021
20SA283 In Re People v Lynch, Darryl (Honorable Ramsey Lama) Feb 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 13, 2020.
On August 14, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in vacating the magistrate’s order and in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 11, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued February 8, 2021
20SA321, In Re Gallentine v. Polis (Hon. Brian R. Whitney) Feb 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 7, 2020.
On September 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 16, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued February 1, 2021
20SA425 In Re the People in the interest of Children and concerning C.L. & R.L.-M. (Honorable Carl McGuire) Jan 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of October 26, November 30, and December 9, 2020.
On December 31, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying a motion to terminate parental rights and instead allocating parental responsibilities to a foster parent. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2021. The petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 19, 2021
20SA313 In Re Green, M.D., Melanie v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman) Jan 2021The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.
On September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for a protective order. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 6, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 14, 2021
20SA331 In Re Camp, Renee v Centura Health (Honorable Morris Hoffman) Jan 2021The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion for a protective order. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020. The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 14, 2021
20SA332 In Re Sterner, Robert v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman) Jan 2021The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion for a protective order. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020. The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 14, 2021
19SA91 In Re Wasulko, Todd v eRentpayment (Honorable Julie Field) Jan 2021The petitioner, Base Commerce LLC, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 30, 2019.
On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add claims against the petitioner. The respondents—Ying Li, Rasheda Mayner, Manish Sing, and Todd Wasulko—are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2019. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued January 8, 2021
20SA308 In Re the Marriage of Ballinger, Terry and Ballinger, Jenna (Honorable Patrick Butler) Nov 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of August 26, 2020.
On September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for change of venue. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 6, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued November 20, 2020
20SA234 In Re Suranyi, John v Watermark Harvard Square (Honorable Eric Johnson) Oct 2020The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of June 22, 2020.
On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion for a protective order regarding discovery. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 5, 2020. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued October 2, 2020
20SA178 In Re Lucas, Donthe v People (Honorable Thomas Flesher) Sep 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 11, 2020.
On May 19, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for an order requiring the Pueblo County Sheriff to keep consultant visits with the petitioner confidential. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 16, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued September 11, 2020
20SA90 In Re the People v. Brown, Daryll Jul 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 5, 2020.
On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to recuse all judges from the First Judicial District. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 10, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued July 20, 2020
20SA52 In Re Gurung, Sir Maya v Kouao, Andoh (Honorable Andrew Macdonald) Jul 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of October 24, 2019.
On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s direct negligence claims. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA120 In Re People v. Lucy & People v. Meresa Jun 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the county court's orders of April 3, 2020 and April 6, 2020.
On April 7, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the county court did not err in continuing two trials past their speedy trial deadlines without clarifying whether the speedy trial statute would still apply. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 5, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA122 In Re Bensman, Sarah v BL Restaurant (Honorable Kandace Cecilia Gerdes) Jun 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of January 8, 2020.
On April 13, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) ordering the petitioner to produce allegedly privileged materials in discovery without first holding a hearing, and (2) denying the petitioner’s motion to continue the trial. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 11, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA56 In Re People v Molina, Arturo (Honorable Kimberly Karn) Jun 2020On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA87 - In Re the Marriage of Wollert, Heidi and Francis, Joseph Jun 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of February 12, 2020.
On March 12, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming a magistrate’s decision to deny petitioner’s motion to restrict parenting time without first holding a hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020. The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA31 In Re People v Huckabay, Donald (Honorable Thomas Flescher) May 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 6, 2020.
On February 10, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 9, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
19SA188 In Re Persichette, William v Owners Insurance (Honorable Shannon Lyons) May 2020The petitioner, Owners Insurance Company, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of August 14, 2019.
On September 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. The respondent, William Persichette, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 4, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
19SA252 In Re People v Degreat, Edward (Honorable Andrew Baum) Apr 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of October 16, 2019.
On November 18, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial rights. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 30, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
20SA48 In Re People v Colunga-Gamez, Javier (Honorable William Robbins) Mar 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 28, 2020.
On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
19SA242 In Re People v Rosas, Paul (Honorable Andrew Baum) Mar 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 12, 2019.
On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to strike a defense expert’s psychiatric opinion for lack of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 11, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
19SA230 In Re People v Vanness, Donald (Honorable William Herringer) Mar 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of October 15, 2019.
On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s demand for a preliminary hearing. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before November 18, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued on March 2, 2020
19SA118 In Re Chessin, Paul v Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (Honorable Michael Martinez) Feb 2020The petitioner, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, seeks relief from the district court’s order of May 10, 2019.
On June 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in granting the respondent’s motion to hold the petitioner’s motion to dismiss in abeyance, thereby requiring the petitioner to respond to a motion to disqualify. The respondent, Paul Chessin, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 8, 2019. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
19SA234 In Re People in the Interest of E.R.G. (Honorable Patrick Pugh) Feb 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of June 11, 2019, and July 11, 2019.
On October 25, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in rescinding a protective order and later refusing to reinstate the order. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before November 22, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Court order issued February 3, 2020
19SA129 In Re Rademacher, Carol v. Greschler, Ira Jan 2020On July 2, 2019, the supreme court issued an Order and Rule to Show Cause asking respondent, Ira Greschler, why the district court's order finding an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to records of Shawn Ettingoff that materially relate to defendant's statute of limitations defense should not be vacated.
Opinion Issued on January 13, 2020
19SA191 In Re People v Kilgore, Joshua (Honorable Suzanne Fairchild Carlson) Jan 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of July 16, 2019; August 24, 2019; and September 3, 2019.
On September 12, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to provide the prosecution with copies of defense exhibits in advance of trial. The respondent, the Honorable Suzanne Fairchild Carlson, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 10, 2019. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued on January 13, 2020
19SA269 In Re Haber, Laura v Travelers Casualty (Honorable Robert Lewis McGahey) Jan 2020The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 27, 2019.
On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to produce sealed records in response to a discovery request. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 7, 2020. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 8, 2020 the Court issued the following order:
19SA151 In Re The People in the interest of B.B.A.M. (Honorable Judith Goeke) Dec 2019The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of July 3, 2019.
On July 31, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate’s order requiring the juvenile to undergo a second competency evaluation. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 30, 2019. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion issued December 9, 2019
19SA180 In Re People v Rowell, James (Honorable Gregory M. Lammons) Dec 2019The petitioner, James Rowell, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 25, 2019.
On August 21, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 18, 2019. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Opinion Issued on December 9, 2019
19SA186 In Re People v. Garcia-Gonzalez, Valeria (Honorable Brian Flynn) Nov 2019Petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of March 5, 2019. On September 19, 2019, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in extending the petitioner's speedy trial period by six months. The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2019. Petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
November 7, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
19SA116 In Re Hernandez, Priscilla v Sisneros, Levi (Honorable Edward Moss) Aug 2019The petitioners, Priscilla Hernandez and the Estate of Alfredo George Hernandez-Chavez, seek relief from the trial court’s orders of April 3, 2019, and April 15, 2019.
On June 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider its earlier dismissal of defendant Levi Sisneros, and (2) denying petitioners’ C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion requesting relief from that prior order. The respondent, Honorable Edward Charles Moss, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 8, 2019. The petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply
On August 30, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
19SA101 In Re the Matter of the Estate of Moore, Michael (Honorable Harold Hurst) Aug 2019The petitioner, Jennifer McGinn, seeks relief from the magistrate’s order of January 31, 2019.
On May 22, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the magistrate did not err in issuing its Order Compelling Disclosures. The respondents—Chase Channing Moore, Kristian Collin Moore, and Kimberly Kalan, Guardian and Conservator for Sydney Camilla Moore, Sophie Lynn Moore, Ellie Marie Moore, and Amy Alissa Moore—are directed to file a written answer on or before June 19, 2019. The petitioner has 28 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
The Court issued the following Order on August 28, 2019:
18SA284 In Re In the Matter of the Estate of Feldman, Stacy (Honorable Elizabeth Leith) Jun 2019The petitioners, Robert Feldman and Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., seek relief from the probate court’s order of November 9, 2018.
On December 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the probate court did not err in ruling that funds contained in defense counsel’s COLTAF account must remain frozen. The respondents, Special Administrator Melissa R. Schwartz and Elizabeth Greenberg, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 10, 2019. The petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
The Court issued the following opinion on June 24, 2019:
19SA22 In Re N.A. Rugby v Rugby International (Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill) Jun 2019The petitioner, Rugby International Marketing LLC, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 28, 2019.
On February 11, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in staying the case and compelling the petitioner to attend arbitration. The respondents, N.A. Rugby Union LLC and Douglas Schoninger, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 13, 2019. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 17, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:
18SA221 In Re People in the interest of T.T. (Honorable Theresa Slade) Jun 2019The petitioner, T.T., seeks relief from the district court's order of May 10, 2018.
On September 20, 2018, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in declining to answer the petitioner's Petition for Certificate of Compliance. The respondents -- Christopher Ryan, State Court Administrator; Shannon Kloek, Clerk of the Arapahoe County Court; and the Honorable Theresa Slade -- are directed to file a written answer on or before October 22, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the ansewr within which to reply.
On June 17, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:
18SA237 In Re the People v. Brown, David (Honorable Kenneth Laff) Jun 2019The petitioner, Brandon D. Brown, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 8, 2018.
On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s Motion for Protective Order. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 26, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 10, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:
18SA228 In Re Reeves-Toney v. School District No. 1 (Honorable J. Eric Elliff) May 2019The petitioner, School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver (“DPS”), seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 17, 2018.
On September 13, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The respondent, Rebecca Reeves-Toney, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 15, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
The Court issued the following opinion on May 28, 2019:
18SA257 In Re People v Roina, Benjamin (Honorable Gregory R. Werner) Mar 2019The petitioner, Benjamin Roina, seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of September 7, 2018, and October 12, 2018.
On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring defense counsel to release to the prosecution certain information contained in its Ex Parte Sealed Motion Raising Competency of the Defendant, and in subsequently denying defense counsel’s Motion to Reconsider regarding that order. The respondent, the Honorable Gregory R. Werner, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 28, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On March 25, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:
19SA32 In Re the Marriage of Stroden (Honorable Charles M. Pratt) Mar 2019On March 13, 2019 the Court issued the following order GRANTING the petition and making the RULE ABSOLUTE:
19SA3 In Re Prout, Vickie v Mansfield, Ryan (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl) Mar 2019The petitioner, Ryan E. Mansfield, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 19, 2018.
On January 9, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to disclose his medical records relating to his treatment for keratoconus. The respondent, Vickie J. Prout, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2019. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On March 7, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
18SA224 In Re People v Tafoya, Elizabeth (Honorable Gretchen Larson) Feb 2019The petitioner, Elizabeth Renee Tafoya, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of May 31, 2018
On September 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 11, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 19, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:
Opinion issued February 19, 2019
18SA127 In Re Accetta, Anthony v Brooks Towers (Honorable J. Eric Elliff) Feb 2019The petitioner, Anthony T. Accetta, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 23, 2018.
On May 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to join all individual unit owners as indispensable parties. The respondents— Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Association, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and Mark Trenka, Marla Grant, Bill Clarke, Clay Courter, Robb Green, Alton Darby, Joan Foster, and Jeanne Root, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Directors of the Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Association, Inc.—are directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 11, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:
18SA261 In Re Department of Revenue v Easdon Jan 2019The petitioner, Jonathan Easdon, seeks relief from the trial court’s actions of July 2018.
On November 7, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing on the distraint warrant issued against the petitioner. The respondents, the Colorado Department of Revenue and the El Paso County District Court, are directed to file a written answer on or before November 30, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 31, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
18SA245 In Re People v. Tarnowski, Adam (Honorable David John Stevens) Jan 2019The petitioner, the 18th Judicial District Probation Department, seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of September 11, 2018, and September 20, 2018.
On October 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and in denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding that denial. The respondent, Adam Howard Tarnowski, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 5, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 17, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
18SA272 In Re People v. Eberly, Kelley (Honorable Russell Granger) Jan 2019The petitioner, Kelley William Eberly, seeks relief from the district court’s order of October 1, 2018.
On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ruling that the petitioner could be tried for felony indecent exposure. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 12, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 10, 2019 the Court issued the following order:
18SA92 In Re Fox, Kayla v Alfini William (Honorable Lance Timbreza) Dec 2018The petitioner, Kayla Fox, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of November 16, 2017.
On April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Recorded Witness Statements. The respondents, William Alfini Jr. and Brady Chiropractic Group P.C., are directed to file a written answer on or before May 21, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On December 3, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
18SA135 In Re Schultz, Charissa v Geico (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow) Nov 2018The petitioner, Charissa Schultz, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 24, 2018.
On May 25, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to submit to a physical examination under C.R.C.P. 35. The respondent, Geico Casualty Company, is directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On November 5, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
18SA166 In Re Wells, Marion v Public Service (Honorable John F. Neiley) Oct 2018The petitioner, Marion J. Wells, as personal representative of the Estate of Wayne E. Wells, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of June 1, 2018.
On July 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Defendant’s Counterclaim for Petition in Condemnation. The respondent, Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 6, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 12, 2018 the court issued the following order:
18SA181 In Re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt) Oct 2018The petitioner, Jack J. Grynberg, seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of May 29, 2018, and July 23, 2018.
On August 16, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) partially granting the plaintiffs’ Motion for Release of Medical Records, and (2) denying the petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. The respondents— Gadeco LLC; Celeste C. Grynberg, individually and as Co-Trustee for the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust, the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust, and the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust; the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust; the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; Pricaspian Development Corporation; Rachel S Grynberg; Miriam Z. Grynberg; Stephen M. Grynberg, individually and as Trustee for Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust; and the Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust—are directed to file a written answer on or before September 5, 2018. The petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 12, 2018 the court issued the following order:
18SA87 In Re People v Kitzmiller (Honorable Michael Davidson) Jul 2018The petitioner, Krista Gaile Kitzmiller, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of March 23, 2018.
On June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Preliminary Hearing. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 20, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On July 25, 2018 the court issued the following order:
17SA248 In Re Rain, Wilson v Barber, Douglas Jun 2018The petitioners, Douglas H. Barber, personal representative of the Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona; The Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona, a/k/a Oliver E. Frascona, a/k/a Oliver Frascona; Joseph B. Lechtanski; and The Real Estate School, a Colorado LLC, seek relief from the district court’s Order of August 2, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion for New Trial. The respondents, Bjorn John Wedan, natural father and heir of Austin Wedan, Hunter Wedan and Mason Wedan, deceased; and Wilson Henry Rains, natural father and heir of Tori Rains-Wedan, deceased, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 30, 2017. The petitioners have 30 days within which to reply.
On June 15, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
18SA26 - In Re People v Stackhouse, James (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski) Jun 2018The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s rulings of December 19, 2017, and January 26, 2018.
On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in granting the defendant’s Motion to Compel the Prosecution to Elect the January 2007 Allegation as Its Sole Basis for Proceeding. The respondent, James Robert Stackhouse, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 22, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On Monday, June 18, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
18SA19 - In Re People v Owens, Sir Mario (Honorable Christopher Munch) Jun 2018The petitioner, the Colorado Independent, seeks relief from the trial court’s rulings of January 12, 2018.
On February 8, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) denying in part the petitioner’s Motion to Unseal Judicial Records in the Court File, and (2) granting the People’s Motion to Seal/Suppress. The respondent, the Honorable Christopher J. Munch, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 12, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 11, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
17SA113 In Re People v. Shank, Alyse Jun 2018The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s order of April 10, 2017.
On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Remove Public Defender from the Case. The respondent, Alyse Elaine Shank, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 17, 2017. The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.
On June 11, 2018 the Court issued the following Opinion:
18SA1 In Re People v. Austin, Ilyias (Honorable Thomas Quammen) Jun 2018The petitioner, Ilyias Calese Austin, seeks relief from the district court’s order of November 13, 2017.
On January 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in denying Austin’s motion for a preliminary hearing. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2018. The petitioner has 35 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
The Court issued the following opinion on June 4, 2018:
17SA299 In Re State Farm v. Goddard, Susan (Honorable Fredrick Michael Goodbee) Jun 2018The petitioner, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, seeks relief from the district court’s ruling of November 17, 2017.
On January 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in ruling that State Farm’s counsel had impliedly waived attorney-client privilege. The respondent, Susan A. Goddard, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 5, 2018. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 4, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion;
17SA247 In re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt) Apr 2018The petitioners, Jack J. Grynberg and The Grynberg Petroleum Corporation, seek relief from the district court’s order of October 10, 2017.
On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendants’ Objection to Special Master Order #25. The respondents—Gadeco LLC; Celeste C. Grynberg, individually and as Co-Trustee for the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust, the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust, and the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; The Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust; The Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust; The Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; Pricaspian Development Corporation; Rachel S Grynberg; Miriam Z. Grynberg; Stephen M. Grynberg, individually and as Trustee for Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust; and The Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust—are directed to file a written answer on or before November 20, 2017. The petitioners have 21 days within which to reply. OPINION 17SA247
18SA33 - In re Galloway, Glen v People (Honorable Gregory Werner) Mar 2018The Petitioner seeks relief from the district court's order of February 7, 2018.
The Court issued the following order on March 5, 2018:
17SA20 In re Bailey, Kelley v Hermacinski, M.D., Mark (Honorable Thomas Ossola) Mar 2018The petitioners, Kelley Bailey and Michael Bailey, seek relief from the district court’s order of January 11, 2017.
On February 9, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in authorizing the Respondents to conduct ex parte interviews with eight of Kelley Bailey's subsequent treating physicians. The respondents, Mark Hermacinski, M.D., Leslie Ahlmeyer, M.D., Mary Bowman, M.D. and Yampa Valley Medical Center, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 13, 2017. The petitioners have 30 days within which to reply.
The Court issued an opinion on March 5, 2018, Rule Made Absolute:
17SA277 In re: People v Schreiber, Marliese (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski) Feb 2018On November 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the People’s Motion to Continue Jury Trial and denying Schreiber’s Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Right to Speedy Trial. The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 22, 2017. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply
On February 26, 2018 the Court issued the following order:
16SA224 In re: 2015-2016 Jefferson County Grand Jury Feb 2018The petitioners, Michael Jamal Whitney and Amy Brimah, seek relief from the district court’s orders of July 19, 22 and August 12, 2016.
On September 2, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s Motions to Quash. The respondent, The People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 3, 2016. The petitioners have 20 days within which to reply.
On February 5, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:
17SA255 In re: Leal, Leonard v Farell, Natalie (Honorable Edward David Bronfin) Feb 2018The petitioner, Natalie Farell, seeks relief from the district court’s orders of August 8, 2017, and October 19, 2017.
On October 23, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in authorizing substituted service under C.R.C.P. 4(f). The respondent, Leonard M. Leal, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 22, 2017. The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 2, 2018 the Court issued the following order:
The Court issued the following order on February 2, 2018:
17SA134 In re Tumpkin v. Broomfield County Court Dec 2017The petitioners, the Broomfield County Court and the Honorable Amy Bockman, seek relief from the district court’s order of June 15, 2017.
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in denying the County Court’s Motion in Limine. The respondent, Joseph Tumpkin, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 10, 2017. The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
Order of Court - December 7, 2017
17SA62 - In re Catholic Health Initiatives v Earl Swensson Associates (Honorable Edward Moss) Oct 2017The petitioner, Catholic Health Initiatives of Colorado, Inc., seeks relief from the district court’s order of March 23, 2017.
On March 31, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Motion to Strike Expert Testimony by Bruce LePage. The respondent, Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., is directed to file a written answer on or before May 1, 2017. The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.
On October 2, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found at:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA62.pdf
16SA230 In re Ryan Frazier v. Wayne Williams (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs) Sep 2017Petitioner, Wayne Williams, in his official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State, seeks relief from the district court’s August 3, 2016 order.
On August 12, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred by awarding attorney’s fees to Ryan Frazier. The respondent, Ryan Frazier, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 12, 2016. The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.
On September 11, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found:
16SA212 In re Villas at Highland Park v. Dale Francescon (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl) May 2017Petitioners, Dale Francescon, CC Communities, LLC, Century Communities, Inc., and Horizon Building Services, LLC seek relief from the district court’s February 25, 2016 order.
On August 12, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioners’ Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel. The respondent, Mari K. Perczak, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 12, 2016. The petitioners’ have 30 days within which to reply.
On May 22, 2017 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at:
16SA324 In re Clean Energy v Borrego Solar Apr 2017The petitioner, Borrego Solar Systems Inc., seeks relief from the district court’s order of December 13, 2016.
On January 3, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering that the petitioner, a non-resident California corporation, was subject to general personal jurisdiction. The respondent, Clean Energy Collective LLC, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 2, 2017. The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.
On April 17, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found:
15SA340 - In re Ferrer, Jessica v Okbamicael, Tesfamariam (Honorable Andrew McCallin) Mar 2017The petitioners, Jessica Ferrer and Kathryn Winslow, seek relief from the district court’s Orders of March 6, March 24, October 23 and December 9, 2015.
On January 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners’ direct negligence claims, denying their motion to add a claim for exemplary damages, and denying the petitioners’ motion to compel production of records. The Respondents, Tesfamariam Okbamicael and Colorado Cab Company, LLC, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 27, 2016; Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 27, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, on March 27, 2017 the court issued a modified opinion: The modified opinion can be found:
17SA17 In re The People v Guzman-Rincon, Luis Mar 2017The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s order of January 30, 2017.
On January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering that the petitioner was precluded from using prior testimony pursuant to C.R.E. 804. The respondent, the Honorable Peter F. Michaelson, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 21, 2017. The petitioner has 20 days within which to reply. Court order dated March 24, 2017.
16SA193 - In re Richard Goodman v Heritage Builders (Honorable Christopher G. Seldin) Feb 2017The petitioner, Heritage Builders, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of May 20, 2016.
On July 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting Bluegreen Inc. and Scott A. Lindenau Architect P.C. d/b/a Studio B. Architects motion for summary judgment. The Respondents, Bluegreen Inc. and Scott A. Lindenau Architect P.C. d/b/a Studio B. Architects, are directed to file a written answer on or before August 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 27, 2017 the Court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at:
16SA199 - In re the marriage of Lisa Gromicko and Nickifor Gromicko (Honorable Bruce Langer) Jan 2017The petitioner, International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, seeks relief from the district court’s Orders of May 2, and June 15, 2016.
On July 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying International Association of Certified Home Inspectors’ Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for ruling on Privilege Claims Raised in the Motion to Quash . The Respondent, Lisa Dawn Gromicko, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 9, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, rule absolute. The opinion can be found at:
16SA38 - In re Rumnock, Stephen v American Family (Honorable A. Bruce Jones) Dec 2016The petitioner, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of December 4, 2015.
On February 11, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting in part and denying in part American Family’s Motion for Protective Order. The Respondent, Stephen Rumnock, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 14, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On December 5, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged. The opinion can be found at:
16SA234 - In re the Marriage of Hokanson (Honorable Valerie Robison) Oct 2016The petitioner, Edward William Hokanson, III, seeks relief from the district court’s July 20, 2016 order.
On August 19, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The respondent, Tracy Hokanson, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 19, 2016. The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.
The Court issued the following order on October 27, 2016: Court Order
16SA275 In re Gagne, Richard v. Gagne, Paula Oct 2016The petitioner, Paula Gagne, seeks relief from the district court’s orders of September 7, 2016.
On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering a dissolution and in-kind distribution of assets of four separate LLCs. The respondent, Richard Gagne, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 7, 2016. The petitioner has 20 days within which to reply.
On October 27, 2016 the Court issued the following order: Court Order
16SA94 In re: People v. Higgins, Brooke (Hon. Paul A. King) Oct 2016The petitioner, Brooke Ann Higgins, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of March 4, 2016.
On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in declining to suppress a psychological examination conducted pursuant to a magistrate’s order. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, are directed to file a written answer on or before April 13, 2016; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 3, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Vacate the Order to Show Cause and Remand for Further Proceedings:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA94.pdf
16SA96 In re: People v. Johnson, Sienna (Hon. Paul A. King) Oct 2016The petitioner, Sienna Johnson, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of February 12, 2016.
On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in determining that the petitioner waived all privilege to her mental health records by disputing the adult, district court jurisdiction through a reverse-transfer hearing and by requiring the petitioner to submit to a an involuntary psychological examination by a state doctor . The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, are directed to file a written answer on or before April 13, 2016; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 3, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA96.pdf
16SA114 In re: Griffith, Christine v SSC Pueblo Belmont (Honorable Jill S. Matoon) Sep 2016The petitioners, SSC Special Holdings LLC; SavaSeniorCare LLC; Svcare Holdings LLC; Canyon Sudar Partners LLC; Special Holdings Parent Holdco LLC; Proto Equity Holdings LLC; and Terpax Inc., seek relief from the district court’s Order of March 1, 2016.
On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying SSC Special Holdings LLC; SavaSeniorCare LLC; Svcare Holdings LLC; Canyon Sudar Partners LLC; Special Holdings Parent Holdco LLC; Proto Equity Holdings LLC; and Terpax Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Christine Griffith, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Antonio Jimenez, Jr., is directed to file a written answer on or before May 16, 2016; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA114.pdf
16SA124 In re Meeks, Khalid v SSC Colorado Springs (Honorable Thomas Kelly Kane) Sep 2016The petitioners, Colorado Holdco LLC, SSC Equity Holdings LLC, SavaSeniorCare LLC, Master Tenant Parent Holdco LLC, Proto Equity Holdings LLC, and Terpax Inc., seek relief from the district court’s Order of March 1, 2016.
On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Colorado Holdco LLC, SSC Equity Holdings LLC, SavaSeniorCare LLC, Master Tenant Parent Holdco LLC, Proto Equity Holdings LLC, and Terpax Inc’s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Khalid Meeks, is directed to file a written answer on or before May 16, 2016; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA124.pdf
16SA75 - In re Dept. of Transportation v Amerco Real Estate (Honorable Christopher Munch) Sep 2016The petitioners, Amerco Real Estate Company and U-Haul Company of Colorado, seek relief from the district court’s Order of February 22, 2016.
On March 3, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Department of Transportation’s petition for immediate possession and denying Amerco Real Estate Company and U-Haul Company of Colorado’s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 23, 2016; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA75.pdf
15SA332 - In re: Magill, John v Ford Motor (Honorable Michael Vallejos) Sep 2016The petitioner, Ford Motor Company, seeks relief from the district court’s Orders of November 9 and December 1, 2015.
On January 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative, for a change of venue . The Respondents, John Magill and Suzanna Magill, are directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA332.pdf
13SA268 - In Re People v Roberson (Honorable J. Richard Caschette) Sep 2016In re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado
v.
Bryan Roberson
The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district order denying revocation of probation.
On October 24, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Bryan Roberson is directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA268.pdf
16SA8 - State of Colorado v The Castle Law Group (Honorable Morris Hoffman) Jul 2016The petitioner, the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s Orders of January 7 and January 11, 2016
On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in limiting testimony to be offered at trial. The Respondents, the Castle Law Group, LLC; Absolute Posting & Process Services, LLC; RE Records Research, LLC, d/b/a Real Estate Records Research; Colorado American Title, LLC; Lawrence E. Castle; Caren A. Castle; Ryan J. O'Connell; and Kathleen A. Benton, are directed to file a written answer on or before February 15, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA8.pdf
14SA35 In Re People v. Elmarr, Sr. (Honorable Patrick Butler) Jun 2016
In re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Kevin Elmarr, Sr.
The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court Order of January 31, 2014.
On February 6, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in admitting alternative suspect evidence when it failed to explicitly determine that the specific evidence was also admissible under the Colorado Rules of Evidence. Respondent Kevin F. Elmarr, Sr., is directed to file a written answer on or before March 10, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA35.pdf
15SA165 In Re People v Chavez, Saul (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs) Apr 2016The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s Orders of March 9 and March 19, 2015.
On June 17, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendant’s Motion for Discovery. The Respondent, Saul Chavez, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 17, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA165.pdf
16SA13 - In re People v Dear, Roberts (Honorable Gilbert Martinez) Apr 2016The petitioners, news media organizations, seek relief from the district court’s Order of December 30, 2016
On January 27, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioners’ motion to unseal portions of affidavits of probable cause supporting the arrest and search of the residence of the defendant, Robert Lewis Dear, in the case below. The Respondent, Hon Gilbert Anthony Martinez, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 16, 2016; Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
The Rule to Show Cause and the above-captioned matter were DISMISSED by court ordered dated April 8, 2016.
15SA151 In re P.W. v Children’s Hospital Jan 2016The petitioners, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Children’s Hospital Colorado Health System, The Children’s Hospital Association, d/b/a The Children’s Hospital Corporation, d/b/a The Children’s Hospital of Colorado seek relief from the district court’s Orders of April 14, 2015.
On June 11, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in precluding discovery of certain records and granting respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Comparative Negligence. The Respondent, P.W., is directed to file a written answer on or before July 13, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA151.pdf
15SA22 In Re Dwyer, Lindi v. State of Colorado (Honorable Herbert Stern, III) Sep 2015The petitioners, the State of Colorado, Robert Hammond, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education of the State of Colorado, and John Hickenlooper, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, seek relief from the district court Order of November 12, 2014.
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Respondents’ Complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim for relief. The Respondents, Linda and Paul Dwyer, et al., are directed to file a written answer on or before March 9, 2015; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA22.pdf
15SA93 In Re People v Medlock, Ryan (Honorable David L. Shakes) Apr 2015The petitioner, Ryan James Medlock, seeks relief from the district court’s Orders of February 6, 2015.
On April 6, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to reconsider and ordering the petitioner held without bond. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before April 16, 2015; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On April 24, 2015 the court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause ABSOLUTE and the matter is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the defendant’s motion for bail bond, in light of this court’s judgment in In re: People v. Jones, 2015 CO 20, -- P.3d --.
15SA19 In Re People v Fallis, Thomas (Honorable James Quammen) Apr 2015The petitioner, Thomas Fallis, seeks relief from the district court Orders of December 16, 2014 and January 14, 2015 .
On January 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Mr. Fallis’ motion to modify the bond conditions prohibiting him from returning to Indiana. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 11, 2015; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On April 24, 2015 the court issued an order DISMISSING the above captioned matter in light of the availability of the appellate remedy identified by this court’s judgment in In re: People v. Jones, 2015 CO 20, -- P.3d --.
14SA284 - In Re People v Zachariah Jones (Honorable Elizabeth A. Starrs) Apr 2015The petitioner, Zachariah M. Jones, seeks relief from the district court Order of March 6, 2014.
On September 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Jones held without bond pending trial. Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered briefing on whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s appeal pursuant to §16-4-204, C.R.S. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On April 6, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:
15SA1 In Re Nicole Sena v. American Family Mutual Insurance (Honorable Victor Reyes) Feb 2015The Petitioner, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of December 19, 2014 and December 23, 2014, requiring production of documents which it considers confidential and proprietary trade secrets.
On January 15, 2015, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The Respondent, Nicole L. Sena, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 16, 2015; the Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 12, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause ABSOLUTE; the district court’s December 19, 2014 and December 23, 2014 orders were vacated; and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction was returned to the district court.
14SA364 In Re City of Colorado Springs v Walker Ranches (Honorable Victor Reyes) Feb 2015The Petitioner, City of Colorado Springs, requests relief from the district court order of December 4, 2014, awarding pretrial costs without any specific finding of reasonableness.
On December 15, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Walker Ranches, LLP a Colorado Limited Liability Partnership, is directed to answer on or before January 14, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 6, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause, ABSOLUTE; the district court’s December 4, 2014 award of costs was vacated; and the matter was remanded with directions to hear and determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by Walker Ranches, following trial in this eminent domain proceeding. Jurisdiction was returned to the district court.
14SA313 In Re Mayfield, James v Farmers Insurance Exchange Jan 2015The Petitioner, James Mayfield, seeks relief from the district court Order of August 27, 2014 granting Respondent's Motion for Change of Venue.
On October 15, 2014 the supreme court issued an Order to Show Cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file an answer brief on or before November 14, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:
14SA266 - In Re Hagan, Deanna v Farmers Insurance Exchange (Honorable D.D. Mallard) Jan 2015The Petitioners, Deanna Hagan and Shane Hagan, seek relief from the district court Order of July 29, 2014 granting Respondent’s motion for change of venue.
On September 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:
14SA267 - In Re Ewald, Cynthia v Farmers Insurance Exchange ( Honorable Andrew Hartman) Jan 2015The Petitioner, Cynthia Ewald, seeks relief from the district court Order of July 21, 2014 granting Respondent’s motion for change of venue.
On September 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:
14SA13 In re: Lillian Malm v. Marion Villegas (Honorable Lilly Oeffler) Jan 2015In re:
Plaintiff:
Lillian R. Malm
v.
Marion Brigitte Villegas
The petitioner, Marion Brigitte Villegas, seeks relief from the district court Order of December 20, 2013, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order granting respondent’s motion to reopen the case.
On January 23, 2014, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Lillian R. Malm is directed to file a written answer on or before February 24, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 20, 2015 the Supreme 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/2014/14SA13.pdf
14SA268 - In Re: People v Michael Blagg (Honorable David Bottger) Jan 2015The Petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of September 4, 2014, setting bond in the amount of $500,000 cash or surety with bond conditions.
On September 6, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Michael F. Blagg, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 17, 2014; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 12, 2015 the Supreme 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/2014/14SA268.pdf
14SA253 - In Re: Christopher Nickerson v. Network Solutions ( Honorable Gregory R. Werner) Dec 2014The Petitioner, Christopher Nickerson d/b/a Christopher Alan, seeks relief from the district court’s Order of August 19, 2014 setting aside a default judgment.
On August 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents, Network Solutions LLC and Web.Com Group Inc., are directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On December 8, 2014 the Supreme 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/2014/14SA253.pdf
14SA223 In re: Adams Bank and Trust v Al Linton (Honorable Maria Berkenkotter) Oct 2014In Re
Plaintiff:
Adams Bank & Trust,
v.
Defendants:
Al Linton; Mike Nelson; Joel Wiens; Jan Wiens; Tim Wiens; Ron Robinson; and Certain directors of Firs Tier Bank, Louisville, Colorado, from January 1, 2009 forward, real names unknown, and the Chief Financial Officer of Firs Tier Bank, Louisville, Colorado, from January 1, 2009 forward, real name(s) unknown.
The Petitioner, Al Linton, seeks relief from the district court Orders of May 21, 2014 (denying Linton’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint) and July 9, 2014 (denying Linton’s Motion for Summary Judgment).
On August 1, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Adams Bank & Trust, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 31, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 31, 2014 the Supreme Court granted the Joint Notice of Settlement and Request for Remand. The original proceeding is DISMISSED and case returned to the district court for further proceedings.
13SA124 In re Simpson v. Cedar Springs Oct 2014In re:
Plaintiff:
Scott R. Simpson
v.
Defendants:
Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a Cedar Springs Behavioral Mental Health Systems; Roger Dwight Pumphrey, M.D.; and Charles J. Peck, M.D.
The petitioner, Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc., seeks relief from the district court order requiring petitioner to produce documents.
On May 16, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, is directed in answer in writing, on or before June 17, 2013. Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 14, 2014 the Supreme 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/2013/13SA124.pdf
13SA91 In Re: People v. Sir Mario Owens Jun 2014
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.
On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rules Made Absolute in Part and Discharged in Part, En Banc, the opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf
13SA94 In Re: People v. Robert Ray Jun 2014
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.
On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rules Made Absolute in Part and Discharged in Part, En Banc, the opinion can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf
13SA209 In re: Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts Jun 2014District Court, City & County of Denver, 13CV33146 (Hon. Ronald Mullins)
In Re:
Plaintiff:
Colorado Medical Board,
v.
Defendants:
The Office of Administrative Courts and Matthew Norwood an Administrative Law Judge in the office of Administrative Courts,
Defendant-Intervenor:
Polly Train, M.D.
The petitioner, Colorado Medical Board, seeks relief from the district court order construing and interpreting § 12-36.5-104(10)(a), C.R.S., to permit subpoena and discovery of records of the Colorado Medical Board in an administrative proceeding.
On August 21, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents the Office of Administrative Courts and Polly Train, M.D. are directed to file a written answer on or before September 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 23, 2014 the Supreme 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/2013/13SA209.pdf
13SA183 People v. Kailey, Randy Jun 2014District Court, Jefferson County, 13CR164 (Hon. Philip McNulty)
In Re
Petitioner:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Randy Steven Kailey.
The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order issued June 27, 2013 excluding the admission of evidence and testimony at trial.
On July 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Randy Steven Kailey, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 19, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On June 23, 2014 the Supreme 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/2013/13SA183.pdf
13SA102 In Re: People v. Robert Storlie Jun 2014
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.
On June 16, 2014 the Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. /userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA102.pdf
13SA97 In re People v. DeAtley, Alan Jun 2014
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.
On June 16, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute. /userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA97.pdf
14SA17, In Re: Board of Commissioners v. City of Woodland Park (Honorable Edward Colt May 2014
In Re:
Plaintiff:
The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teller,
v.
Defendant:
The City of Woodland Park, a municipal corporation.
The Petitioner, The City of Woodland Park, seeks relief from the district court Order of January 6, 2014.
On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court abused its discretion in it’s interpretation of C.R.S. sections 31-12-113 and 31-12-116 when it did not require the plaintiff to file its motion to reconsider within ten days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. Respondent, The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teller, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 18, 2014; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On May 19, 2014 the Supreme 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/2014/14SA17.pdf
13SA332 In re: People of the State of Colorado v. Interest of Child S.G. (Honorable Donna Schmalberger) Feb 2014In re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
In the Interest of
Child:
S.G.
The petitioner, S.G., seeks relief from the district court Orders of October 23 and December 13, 2013, imposing sanctions on current and prior counsel for the petitioner.
On December 30, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents, E.S. through attorney James Andrew Henderson, Guardian ad Litem; the Office of the Public Defender through Hannah Seigel Proff, Deputy Public Defender; and The People of the State of Colorado through the office of the Denver District Attorney, Lindsay L. Vangilder, Deputy District Attorney, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 14, 2014; Petitioner has 15 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On February 18, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED and the case DISMISSED.
13SA278, In Re: Wagner v. McMahill, James Jan 2014District Court, Weld County, 10CV1202 ( Hon. Dinsmore Tuttle)
In Re
Plaintiff:
Cindy Wagner,
v.
Defendants:
James Brian McMahill; and Allen, Vahrenwald & Johnson LLC, n/k/a Vahrenwald, Johnson & McMahill, LLC a Colorado limited liability company;
and Concerning
Defendant:
Attorney H.
Synopsis:
The petitioner, Cindy Wagner, seeks relief from the district court Order of September 23, 2013, granting the Motion to Take Deposition of Attorney H over the objections of the Petitioner.
On November 5, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents James Brian McMahill and Allen, Vahrenwald & Johnson LLC, n/k/a Vahrenwald, Johnson & McMahill, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, are directed to file a written answer on or before December 5, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED as having been improvidently issued.
13SA287 In Re: City of Commerce City v. Desire Tatum, (Honorable C. Vincent Phelps Jan 2014In re:
Plaintiff:
City of Commerce City,
v.
Defendant:
Desire Tatum
The petitioner, City of Commerce City, seeks relief from the Administrative Order of the Chief Judge 12-03, Amended May 9, 2013, and the district court’s order issued October 2, 2013, quashing a citation to show cause and staying proceedings pending appeal in Commerce City Municipal Court case number CM00218623.
On November 7, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The respondent Hon. C. Vincent Phelps, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 9, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On January 14, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED as having been improvidently issued.
13SA113, In Re: People v. Voth, Paul Oct 2013District Court, Chaffee County, 12CR72 (Hon. Charles Barton)
In Re
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Paul Lesley Voth.
The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court holding that the respondent’s prolonged delirium, believed to be caused by an unidentified viral infection, could form the basis of an involuntary intoxication defense pursuant to C.R.S. 18-1-804.
On May 15, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Paul Lesley Voth is directed to file a written answer on or before June 14, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.
On October 21, 2013 the Supreme 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/2013/13SA113.pdf
12SA156 In Re: People v. John Brothers May 2013
12SA75 - The People v. Jesus Luna-Solis Apr 2013
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.
On April 8, 2013 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Judgment Reversed and Rule Made Absolute, En Banc. The opinion can be found at http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA75.pdf
12SA189- In Re: People v. Bruce Nozolino Mar 2013
12SA263 In Re: People In the Interest of W.P., an Adult Feb 2013
On February 11, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc. The Opinion can be found at:
12SA83 - In Re: Liebnow v. Boston Enterprises Feb 2013
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.
12SA199 - Stacey Warden v. Exempla, Inc. Dec 2012
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
12SA63 In Re the Marriage of Wiggins Jun 2012
12SA81, In Re: Hampers, Lous and Hampers, Kelley Jun 2012District 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 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.
12SA24 In Re: People v. Brittney Angel May 201212SA24 In Re: People v. Brittney Angel
11SA51, In Re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael Apr 2012
Plaintiff:
Donald Francis Smith,
v.
Defendants:
Michael D. Jeppsen and Virginia S. Benincosa,
Intervenor:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance.
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
11SA250 In Re: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera Apr 2012In 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 Apr 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc. The Opinion can be found at:
11SA224 In Re: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC Apr 2012In 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 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
11SA225 In Re: Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC Apr 2012In 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 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
11SA331 - In Re: People v. Tyler R. Wilburn Mar 2012
11SA305 In Re: People v. Salazar Mar 201211SA305 In Re: People v. Salazar
11SA226 - In Re: Peabody Energy Corporation v. Colorado PUC Feb 2012In 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 February 24, 2012 the court granted a joint motion to Dismiss.
11SA304 In Re: People v. Workman Feb 201211SA304 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 February 16, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.
11SA77 In Re: Vinton v. Virzi Feb 2012Petitioner 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 February 13, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found at:
11SA82 In Re: Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods, Inc., and Colorado Sun Oil Processing, LLC Feb 2012Petitioners 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.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA82.pdf
11SA248, In Re the Marriage of Brandt and Brandt Jan 2012
District Court, Arapahoe County,11DR1312
In re the Marriage of
Petitioner:
George T. Brandt,
v.
Respondent:
Christine Brandt.
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
11SA283 In Re: Curran, et al v. Philadelphia Financial, et al Jan 2012District 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.
On January 17, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.
11SA186 In Re: Westwood College Inc. v. Estes, Jillian Nov 2011District 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.
11SA208 - In Re: People v. Hasty Nov 2011In 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 November 17, 2011 the court issued an order discharging the rule to Show Cause and dismissing the original proceeding.
11SA66 In Re: Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Nov 2011Petitioner Holly Averyt seeks relief from the district court’s order granting Respondent a new trial.
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
10SA373, In Re: Ortega, Ernest v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C. Nov 2011District 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
10SA374, In Re: Moreland/Manoogian, LLC v. Judd, Richard Jun 2011District 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:
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
11SA80, In Re: The Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa Jun 20112011SA80, In Re Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa
10SA234, In Re: Thomas v. FDIC Jun 2011District 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.
www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA234.pdf
10SA341, In Re: People v. Ray, Robert Apr 2011District 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.
10SA325, In re: People v. Williamson, Craig Apr 2011District Court, Arapahoe County, 2009CR234 (Hon. John Wheeler)
In Re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Craig Dumene Williamson.
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
11SA6, In Re: Fuzell, Frank v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours Apr 2011District 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:
10SA376, In Re: People v. Deanda, Cesar Mar 2011District Court, El Paso County, 95CR1214, (Honorable Deborah L. Grohs)
In Re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Cesar Deanda.
10SA345 In Re: People v. Baharmast, Farzin Traver Feb 2011District 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.
11SA32, In Re: People v. Weeks, Mark Feb 2011District Court, Logan County, 2010CR141 (Hon. Michael K. Singer)
In Re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Defendant:
Mark Weeks.
Synopsis:
10SA315,In re: People v. Vlassis, Spiros Feb 2011District Court, Arapahoe County, 2001CR1160 (Hon. John Wheeler)
In Re:
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado
v.
Defendant:
Spiros Vlassis.
Synopsis:
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
10SA146, In re: Glab, Nicole and Julian, Ronald Nov 2010District 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.
10SA20, In re: Garrigan, Phillip v. Bowen, Philip Nov 2010District 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.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA20.pdf
10SA101, In re: People v. Baltazar Nov 2010District 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 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
10SA239, In re: People v. Halprin Nov 2010District 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.
10SA320, In re the Marriage of: Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld Nov 2010District 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 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.
10SA161, In re the Marriage of: Hall and Hall Oct 2010District 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:
10SA164, In re: People v. McKeel Oct 2010District 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 October 18, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at:
10SA244, In re: Morales-Perez v. CDOC, Parole Division Sep 2010District 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.
10SA30, In re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael Sep 2010District 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.
10SA183, In re: Tidrick v. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Sep 2010District 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.
10SA177, In re: Fesmire v. Haddonstone Jul 2010District 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.
10SA58, In re: The Foundation for Knowledge v. Interactive Design Jun 2010District 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 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
10SA34, In re: Radil, Jennifer v. National Union Fire Jun 2010District 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 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
10SA39, In re: People v. Hamm, Norman Jun 2010County 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 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.
10SA50, In re the Marriage of: Nutt and Nutt Jun 2010District 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 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.
10SA87, In re: Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek Jun 2010District 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 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.
09SA91, In re: People v. Spykstra Jun 2010District 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
09SA216, In re the Marriage of: Weis v. Weis Jun 2010District 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
10SA128, In re: People v. Perez, Jorge May 2010District 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 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.
09SA350, In re: People v. C.J. Day May 2010District 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
10SA75, In re: People v. Owens, Sir Mario May 2010District 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.
09SA257, In re: Rocky Mountain Bank v. France Jan 2010Certification 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.
09SA144, In re: Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties Jan 2010District 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
09SA282, In re: People v. Almeyda, Edwin Jan 2010District 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.
09SA280, In re: People v. Ray, Robert Dec 2009District 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.
09SA247, In re: People v. Shirley, Darin Dec 2009District Court, Broomfield County, 08CR115 (Hon. John Popovich Jr.)
In Re:
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.
09SA182, In re: People v. Nichelson, Johnathan Nov 2009District 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
09SA179, In re: People v. Medina, Delano Oct 2009District 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.
09SA262, In re: Forsythe, Lynne v. Bell, Charlie Oct 2009District 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.
09SA22, In re: People in the Interest of A.H. Sep 2009District 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
09SA164, In re: Carl and Linda Curtis v. Doris Stokes Sep 2009District 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.
09SA19, In re: Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker Jun 2009District 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
09SA16, In re: People v. Ruch Jun 2009District 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.
09SA59, In re: People v. Body May 2009District 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.
09SA5, In re: Berry v. Keltner May 2009Larimer 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
17SA32 In re Rains, Wilson v Barber Douglas (Honorable Todd Taylor) The petitioners, Douglas Barber, personal representative of The Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona, a/k/a Oliver E. Frascona, a/k/a Oliver Frascona; and The Real Estate School, a Colorado LLC, seek relief from the district court’s orders of September 1, 2016.
On February 16, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in vacating the order issued July 28, 2016 denying the Respondent’s motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and granting the Respondent’s Motion for New Trial. The respondents, Wilson Henry Rains, natural father and heir of Tori Rains-Wedan, deceased and Bjorn John Wedan, natural father and heir of Austin Wedan, Hunter Wedan and Mason Wedan, deceased, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 8, 2017. The petitioners have 20 days within which to reply.
On June 1, 2017 the Court issued the following order:
| Court Proceedings |
|
Supreme Court Homepage Case Announcements Oral Arguments Ballot Initiatives |