Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Colorado Court of Appeals
In Re the Marriage of Walker
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-09-15 · cited 6×
In this post-dissolution proceeding, Lucey V. Walker appealed the denial of her C.R.C.P. 59 post-trial motion in a maintenance dispute with her former husband, after her related appeals were consolidated. The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed all appeals, ruling that the two consolidated appeals were moot and that the primary appeal in 09CA0510 was untimely under C.A.R. 4(a). The court reasoned that Walker's C.R.C.P. 59 motion, filed nearly four years after she obtained an extension to secure a hearing transcript, was itself untimely because she failed to diligently prosecute it by updating the trial court on her efforts or filing promptly after learning no transcript was available, and therefore did not toll the 45-day appeal deadline. The court found her supporting affidavits conclusory and insufficient to show diligence, noting she provided no explanation for the additional four-month delay after the transcript issue was resolved.
family lawprocedure
Sosa v. INDUS. CLAIM APPEALS OFC. OF STATE
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-07-07 · cited 5×
This case involved a claimant fired from a beef packing plant after testing positive for marijuana at work under the employer's zero-tolerance policy, who then sought unemployment benefits. A hearing officer awarded benefits on a no-fault basis, finding the employer failed to prove the confirming lab was licensed or certified as required by statute, but the Industrial Claim Appeals Office Panel reversed and imposed disqualification. The court set aside the Panel's order and remanded to reinstate the hearing officer's decision, holding that the statute expressly requires proof of a licensed or certified testing facility to support disqualification and that the record supported the hearing officer's finding of no such proof. The court did not reach issues about medical marijuana use or impairment.
labor & employmentprocedure
C.P. Bedrock, LLC v. Denver County Board of Equalization
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-06-20 · cited 1×
This case concerned whether a 37-acre parcel of vacant land in Denver, previously classified as agricultural, should retain that status for property tax years 2007 and 2008 after construction work for road widening disrupted its use. The Denver County Board of Equalization reclassified the property as commercial vacant land, but the Board of Assessment Appeals reversed that decision and ordered the agricultural classification restored based on the land's inclusion in a larger farm unit enrolled in a federal conservation program. The Court of Appeals reversed the BAA, holding that the property did not qualify as agricultural land under C.R.S. § 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I) because it had not been placed in the conservation program until 2007 and was not being restored through conservation practices or an approved plan during the relevant prior years. The court reasoned that the statutory requirements for agricultural classification must be strictly met and that the BAA's interpretation lacked a reasonable basis in law.
taxesproperty
People Ex Rel. Cz
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-11-24
The case involves the termination of parental rights of A.L.L. and D.Z. to their child C.Z. in a dependency and neglect proceeding, where the child is an Indian child subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The trial court terminated the rights after finding beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child and that the county department had made active efforts to provide remedial services. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the termination judgment, clarified procedures for withdrawal and substitution of court-appointed appellate counsel in such cases under C.A.R. 3.4, and held that the department's services satisfied the ICWA active efforts requirement despite references to reasonable efforts in earlier orders. The court rejected arguments that the treatment plans and prior findings undermined the termination order.
family lawcivil rightsprocedurefederal power
Vecellio v. Regents of the University of Colorado
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-09-02
The case involved a University of Colorado police officer who was suspended without pay immediately after his arrest for alleged felonies involving sexual offenses against a child. An administrative law judge and the Colorado State Personnel Board determined that the university violated personnel rules by imposing the suspension without first holding a predisciplinary meeting, since formal charges had not yet been filed. The court affirmed that Board Rule 6-12(A) permits suspension without pay and without a meeting only after an employee is formally charged via complaint, indictment, or information, but reversed the board's finding on the timing, holding that charges were filed on October 7, 2008. It remanded for an order requiring back pay and administrative leave for the period from the September 25 suspension until that filing date. The core reasoning was the plain-language distinction between arrest and formal charging under the personnel board rules, along with the availability of other options like paid administrative leave to address workplace concerns.
labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure
People v. Sanchez
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-08-19 · cited 9×
In People v. Sanchez, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder after deliberation, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and first- and second-degree assault arising from stabbings at a campground party following an accusation of theft. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions. It held that the evidence of deliberation was sufficient because the defendant unfolded his knife before the attack, targeted vulnerable body areas, and made statements indicating readiness to act. The court further concluded that any inconsistency between the attempted-murder verdicts and the heat-of-passion assault findings did not require reversal and that the trial court properly gave a flight instruction based on the defendant's post-crime conduct.
criminal lawprocedure