Jerry N. Jones

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the sale of real property and assets of an RV village, where the buyer alleged that the seller breached contracts and a warranty deed by conveying the property subject to a tenant's lease that was not disclosed as an encumbrance. The district court found breaches of the real estate purchase agreement, asset purchase agreement, and warranty deed but awarded no damages to the buyer, while ruling against the buyer on fraud claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the findings of breach regarding the real estate purchase agreement and warranty deed, as well as the no-fraud ruling, but reversed the breach finding on the asset purchase agreement. The court also held that the district court used an incorrect measure of damages for the breaches and remanded for further proceedings to assess damages based on the value of the lease encumbrance.

property

In People v. Harland, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for first-degree burglary, sexual assault on a child, enticement of a child, attempted sexual assault on a child, and two counts of indecent exposure, which stemmed from a 2008 incident in which a man followed a ten-year-old girl into her home and assaulted her, later identified through a DNA profile match from crime scene evidence run against two databases. The court affirmed the convictions and habitual offender adjudication, sentencing the defendant to 108 years to life. It held that testimony referencing the DNA databases was relevant to show how the defendant became a suspect and to bolster the credibility of the investigating agent, was not offered to prove prior criminality under CRE 404(b), and carried probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; it further concluded that the DNA match plus the victim's detailed physical description of the assailant (including a specific tattoo) provided sufficient evidence of identity.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a father's challenge to the termination of his parental rights in a relinquishment and adoption proceeding. The child's mother had identified the father as unknown in court filings and to the adoption agency, resulting in notice by publication and an order terminating rights entered in March 2009; the father learned of the proceeding months later and filed a C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion alleging a due process violation from the lack of actual notice. The district court denied the motion solely on the ground that section 19-5-105(4) barred any challenge to the termination order after ninety days. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory time limit did not eliminate the court's discretion to consider a due process claim based on allegedly fraudulent nondisclosure that prevented the father from receiving notice, and remanded for a hearing on the merits of the motion.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

This case concerned whether Protect Colorado Jobs, Inc. (PCJ) was an "issue committee" under Colorado Constitution article XXVIII and the Fair Campaign Practices Act for its role in supporting a right-to-work ballot initiative that became Amendment 47 on the 2008 ballot. The administrative law judge determined that PCJ lacked a major purpose of supporting the initiative and therefore had not violated the Act by failing to register and report its contributions and expenditures. The court of appeals reversed, concluding from undisputed facts that PCJ was incorporated to advance the initiative, contracted and paid nearly $300,000 for petition circulation services, and routed payments through a related committee it controlled. Because these activities showed PCJ had a major purpose of supporting the initiative, the court held it was required to comply with the registration and reporting obligations and remanded for further proceedings.

electionslabor & employment

The case concerned whether the City of Fort Morgan had to release certain documents created during the performance evaluation of City Administrator Michael Nagy to The Fort Morgan Times newspaper under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). The district court held that disclosure was not required, and the court of appeals affirmed that judgment. The court concluded that the individual council members' review forms and the city attorney's compilation of ratings and comments qualified as work product under CORA's statutory exception because they were prepared in anticipation of the evaluation discussion and reflected deliberative thought processes rather than final collective decisions. Although a composite evaluation was presented and discussed in executive session before a final vote in open session, the underlying individual documents remained protected from public release.

procedurefree speech

The case involved a dispute between general contractor Lafarge and subcontractor K.E.C.I. over whether K.E.C.I. breached subcontract provisions requiring it to defend, indemnify, and provide primary insurance to Lafarge in connection with a negligence lawsuit arising from a fatal motorcycle accident during a highway construction project. The district court granted summary judgment to Lafarge on all claims, but the appellate court affirmed only the finding that K.E.C.I. breached the duty to defend, reversed on the indemnity and insurance issues, and remanded for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the duty to defend was triggered by the allegations in the underlying complaint, that no determination of K.E.C.I.'s fault had been made to support indemnification, and that the subcontract did not unambiguously require primary rather than excess insurance coverage.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved real estate agents who sued their former brokerage firm and its managers for unpaid commissions on sales involving their personal contacts, asserting claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil theft under Colorado statute. After a bench trial, the district court found no enforceable contract due to lack of mutual agreement on commission splits, awarded damages on the unjust enrichment claim, and dismissed the civil theft claim as barred by the economic loss rule on the ground that any duties were contractual. The appellate court vacated the civil theft ruling and remanded for further findings, reasoning that the absence of a contract meant the economic loss rule could not automatically preclude the tort claim, while affirming the denial of attorney fees because the plaintiffs did not prevail on a contract claim under the policy manual's fee-shifting provision.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

In Burbach v. Canwest Investments, LLC, the plaintiff sued the defendant property owner for injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on naturally accumulated snow and ice on a public sidewalk adjacent to the defendant's property, asserting a claim under Colorado's premises liability statute in light of a Denver ordinance requiring adjacent owners to clear such sidewalks. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that the premises liability statute did not abrogate the common-law "no duty" rule, under which owners of property adjacent to public sidewalks owe no duty to pedestrians to remove natural snow and ice, because the statute applies only to injuries occurring on the landowner's real property and the ordinance neither created civil liability nor rendered the sidewalk the defendant's property. The court further concluded that the defendant's occasional compliance with the ordinance did not constitute assumption of a duty, as it was undertaken to avoid penalties rather than voluntarily.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Clark v. People, the petitioner sought to seal his criminal records under Colorado's sealing statute after an initial class 2 misdemeanor traffic charge for failure to notify authorities of an accident was dismissed following his guilty plea to a separate class 3 misdemeanor charge of false reporting, which was later withdrawn. The district court denied the petition, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that section 24-72-308(3)(a)(I) expressly bars sealing of records pertaining to class 1 or 2 misdemeanor traffic offenses, and the plain language of the statute made the exception applicable here because the records related to the original traffic charge. The court rejected arguments for ambiguity, offense-specific sealing, or limiting the exception's scope, interpreting the statute as a whole to give effect to the legislative exclusion without additional implied carve-outs.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Ricardo Lemar Samuels, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder (extreme indifference), two counts of attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and related crime of violence counts stemming from a 2005 gang-related shooting that killed one person and targeted others. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his residence by a probation officer, as well as rulings on attorney disqualification, juror challenges, voir dire time limits, use of his nickname, and admission of certain evidence including prior gun possession and witness threats. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the probation search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion of a probation violation even without an express warrantless-search condition, and finding no error in the other rulings. The court reasoned that special needs of probation supervision justified the search, that the evidence was directly relevant or admissible for non-propensity purposes, and that no cumulative error occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Timothy Gognat sued Stephen Smith, Chet Ellsworth, Joanne Ellsworth, and MSD Energy, Inc., alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to identifying oil and natural gas reserves in western Kentucky, claiming the defendants had used his confidential information to acquire leases without compensation. The district court granted summary judgment to Smith on statute of limitations grounds, dismissed claims against the nonresident defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and awarded attorney fees to the nonresidents. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Smith because Gognat knew of the alleged misappropriation more than three years before filing suit, upheld dismissal of claims against Ms. Ellsworth and MSD for lack of jurisdiction, found jurisdiction existed over Mr. Ellsworth but affirmed judgment in his favor on the same limitations grounds, and vacated the attorney fees award for redetermination. The core reasoning centered on the three-year statute of limitations for trade secret claims under Colorado law and Colorado's rules governing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves an eminent domain proceeding in which the City of Brighton sought to acquire a seventy-foot strip of land from two agricultural parcels owned by the Palizzi landowners to widen Bromley Lane. A jury awarded the landowners approximately $204,887 in compensation based on evidence valuing the strip at the per-square-foot rate of the parcels' hypothetical highest and best use as a mixed commercial-residential development. The City appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted valuation testimony that failed to account for the undisputed requirement that the strip be dedicated to the City upon any future annexation and rezoning. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the evidence should have reflected only the value permitted by the parcels' existing zoning because the dedication obligation meant the strip itself could never be developed or sold for development value. The case was remanded for a new trial.

property

This case concerned a dispute over a public works construction project where the general contractor, Hamon, alleged that the project administrator (C&B) and assistant city engineer (Kitzman) had concealed defects in the drainage design, causing delays and leading to the withholding of payments and assessment of liquidated damages. Hamon brought tort claims including fraudulent concealment against C&B and Kitzman. The district court granted summary judgment to C&B on all tort claims, granted summary judgment to Kitzman on some claims, dismissed the rest for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and awarded attorney fees and costs to both defendants. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments and dismissal order, concluding that the tort claims lacked merit and that jurisdiction was absent for certain pre-contractual claims, but it vacated portions of the fee awards related to post-contractual claims and remanded for further proceedings on whether those claims were substantially vexatious.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was a personal injury lawsuit stemming from a car accident in snowy conditions, where the defendant's pickup truck slid through an intersection and struck the plaintiff's stopped vehicle. A jury found that the defendant was not negligent, and the plaintiff appealed the verdict on grounds including allegedly improper jury instructions on sudden emergency and res ipsa loquitur, a juror's sharing of speed and reaction time calculations during deliberations, and limits on voir dire time. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, ruling that competent evidence supported the sudden emergency instruction, no basis existed for a res ipsa loquitur instruction, the juror's conduct did not warrant a new trial, and the voir dire limit was not an abuse of discretion.

torts & liabilityprocedure