In People v. Jones, a deputy public defender appealed orders holding her in contempt during her representation of a defendant charged with kidnapping and sexual assault, where the trial judge cited multiple instances of alleged misconduct throughout the trial, including improper questioning and arguments, rather than limiting the finding to one specific question posed to a witness. The appellate court vacated the contempt orders and remanded the case, ruling that the proceedings violated due process because the trial judge had expanded the contempt basis beyond the initial incident and should have assigned the matter to a different judge to ensure fairness. The core reasoning emphasized that while the original judge observed the conduct, another judge could evaluate the record and impose punishment without concerns over impartiality or appearance of bias.
In this workers' compensation insurance coverage dispute, First Comp Insurance, the carrier for a statutory employer, appealed an order finding it liable for funeral expenses following a workplace fatality, contending that Pinnacol Assurance had failed to properly cancel the direct employer's policy under section 8-44-110 and should therefore be responsible. The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that First Comp lacked standing to challenge Pinnacol's compliance with the cancellation statute. The court reasoned that any injury to First Comp was not to a legally protected interest because the statute's notice requirements were intended to protect employers and injured workers, not other insurers, and nothing in the statutory scheme conferred a right on First Comp to enforce those procedures.
In this case, Grandote Golf and Country Club, LLC sued the Town of La Veta seeking a declaratory judgment that a 1985 ordinance repealing an earlier annexation was void for failing to follow statutory disconnection procedures, meaning certain property remained part of the town. The district court dismissed the suit, finding it barred by the statute of limitations and that the parties' later actions showed they understood the property was not annexed. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds, concluding that the original 1984 annexation ordinance never took effect because the town filed only one certified copy with the county clerk and recorder instead of the two required by statute and the county clerk did not file a copy with the division of local government. Because the annexation was never effective, the repealing ordinance did not need to comply with disconnection requirements. The court reviewed the matter under summary judgment standards after considering documents outside the pleadings.
The case concerned whether an arbitrator's order dismissing an employment dispute on the merits qualified as an 'award' under the Uniform Arbitration Act of 1975, even though the arbitrator had not yet resolved a request for attorney fees and costs under the employment contract. After Cipoletti's arbitration claim against the American Numismatic Association was dismissed based on after-acquired evidence of misconduct, he sought to vacate the dismissal more than thirty days later. The court held that the May 27, 2009 dismissal order was a final award triggering the thirty-day deadline for applications to vacate, rendering Cipoletti's challenge untimely. It further ruled that the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to decide the fees and costs issues after issuing the award, and therefore affirmed the district court's confirmation of both the dismissal and the subsequent costs award.
The case involved plaintiffs appealing a district court's award of over $324,000 in costs to defendant Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company after the defendant prevailed in a breach of contract and bad faith insurance claim action stemming from a foreclosure dispute. The appellate court affirmed awards for discovery deposition transcripts and expert witness fees because the defendant provided sufficient evidence of their reasonableness and necessity through an expert report, but vacated the award for computerized legal research costs and remanded for further findings on whether they reflected actual out-of-pocket expenses rather than flat fees or overhead. It also reversed certain travel and mileage costs that lacked adequate documentation or justification of necessity under Colorado statutes and case law. The court emphasized that while trial courts have discretion to award reasonable and necessary costs to prevailing parties, the requesting party bears the burden of supporting each item with adequate evidence, and appellate review is limited to arguments preserved below.
The case involved an employee who sued his former employer under the Colorado Wage Claim Act for unpaid commissions of about $210,000, along with related contract and unjust enrichment claims. The trial court directed a verdict for the employer on the Wage Act claim and the jury found for the employer on the others. The appellate court held that section 8-4-110(1) permits a court to award attorney fees to a prevailing employer in its discretion even if the employee's claim was not frivolous, rejecting the employee's contrary interpretation of the statute. It affirmed the fee award (later reduced to $34,000) and certain costs but remanded for additional findings explaining the fee calculation.