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 · Born 1962
Norman v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-10-13 · cited 1×
In this unemployment benefits case, claimant John Norman sought review after the Industrial Claim Appeals Office denied his request for a new hearing on an employer's appeal that resulted in the loss of his benefits award. The employer had timely appealed a deputy's decision granting benefits, but the appeal was not served on Norman, and the first notice he received was a hearing notice sent after he had left on a short trip; he missed the hearing, learned of the disqualification only afterward, and promptly requested a rehearing. The court set aside the Panel's order and remanded for a new hearing, concluding that Norman had shown good cause for his absence. It reasoned that a reasonably prudent person would not have anticipated a hearing being scheduled and held so soon after the appeal deadline or made mail arrangements during a brief absence, especially given the deputy's advisement that an appeal might not even be accepted, and that other regulatory factors such as lack of timely notice and the interest in a fair resolution supported excusing the failure to appear.
labor & employmentprocedure
City of Colorado Springs v. Andersen Mahon Enterprises, LLP
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-07-22 · cited 2×
This case involved a dispute over attorney fees in an eminent domain action where the City of Colorado Springs condemned property owned by Andersen Mahon Enterprises for a roadway project. After a commission valued the property at $1,542,294—28.5% above the city's last written offer of $1,200,000—the trial court awarded fees to the owner under section 38-1-122(1.5) by including prejudgment interest in the "award by the court" calculation to exceed the 130% threshold. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory phrase "award by the court" refers only to the commissioners' or jury's valuation award and does not incorporate prejudgment interest added under section 38-1-116. The court reasoned that the plain language of the fee statute, its distinction from interest provisions, and the legislature's choice of wording supported treating the valuation and interest as separate for the fee trigger.
propertyprocedure
People v. Price
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-06-24 · cited 25×
The case involved Richard Allen Price's conviction following a jury trial on one count of sexual assault on a child, four counts of sexual assault on a child as part of a pattern of abuse, and five counts of aggravated incest, all based on alleged assaults of S.P. Price appealed the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion after his mid-trial suicide attempt and hospitalization, along with claims of a fatal variance between the charging documents and verdict forms and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Price's absence was voluntary under Crim. P. 48(b) and constituted a waiver of his right to be present, that no competency hearing was required under the circumstances, and that the ineffective assistance claim could not be addressed on direct appeal because it required further factual development in postconviction proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
P.F.P. Family Holdings, L.P. v. Stan Lee Media, Inc.
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-05-27 · cited 7×
This case concerned the validity of a 2008 court-ordered annual shareholder meeting of Stan Lee Media, Inc., an administratively dissolved Colorado corporation, where the special master rejected certain proxy appointments for lacking dates or timely submission and concluded no quorum existed to elect a board of directors. The district court adopted the special master's report and denied a motion to reconvene the meeting. The appellate court reversed, holding that the company's bylaws require only a signed proxy form for validity at the specific meeting and that neither the court nor special master could impose additional requirements such as dating or early deadlines. The court further reasoned that proxies submitted for this meeting did not raise staleness concerns under the bylaws or statutes, resulting in a sufficient quorum. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Shupe v. BOULDER COUNTY
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-03-18 · cited 6×
The case involved Boulder County homeowners Kenneth and Darla Shupe, who sought a special use permit to host events in a barn on their 4.8-acre agricultural-zoned property but were blocked when county officials determined the principal use was residential rather than agricultural. The Board of Adjustment upheld the director's residential-use determination, but the district court reversed it, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that article 4-502(E)(5)(c) of the Boulder County Land Use Code expressly treats one single-family dwelling as customary and incidental once open agricultural uses are present on the parcel, so the principal use cannot be classified as residential. Review was limited to whether the board abused its discretion by misapplying the code's plain language.
propertybusiness & regulatory
People v. Gardner
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010-03-04 · cited 32×
In People v. Gardner, the defendant appealed the denial of his Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion after pleading guilty in 2006 to three class-three felony theft counts arising from misrepresentations about accounts receivable to obtain funding from factoring companies. The court held that a guilty plea does not waive a double jeopardy claim based solely on the facial multiplicity of the charges, and it examined whether the applicable version of section 18-4-401(4) required treating all thefts within any six-month period as a single offense. It concluded that the two identical counts from case 05CR5321 (both covering September-October 2005) were multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy, but the remaining count from a separate case (covering March 2004-April 2005) was not, and it rejected the defendant's other constitutional and jurisdictional challenges. The district court's order was therefore reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the multiplicitous counts.
criminal lawprocedure