A discovery dispute arose out of claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Moreland/Manoogian, LLC and Tamsen Investments, LLC (collectively "M/M"). Richard Judd, Stephen Waters and their firm Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, PC (RWO) represented M/M in a real estate development deal. Cedar Street Venture, LLC and M/M sought to solidify their partnership, but in the final phases of the deal, Cedar Street's attorney withdrew. RWO continued to represent M/M in the transaction but at times also advised and acted on behalf of Cedar Street. Because of these actions, Cedar Street viewed RWO as its attorney. Eventually the relationship between M/M and Cedar Street soured, and the parties went to arbitration to settle their differences. The basis of M/M and Cedar Street's complaints pertained to RWO's fees. During discovery, M/M sought RWO's financial records. RWO refused to turn them over. With minimal explanation, the trial court found that these documents were directly relevant to the case. In its holding, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to set the framework that trial courts should use when deciding on discovery requests that implicate the right to privacy: (1) the party requesting the information must prove the information is relevant to case; (2) the party opposing the request must show that the materials are confidential and will not otherwise be disclosed; (3) if the court determines there is a legitimate expectation of privacy in the materials, the requesting party must prove disclosure serves a compelling interest; and (4) if successful, the requesting party must show that the information is not available through other sources. View "In Re: Moreland/Manoogian v. Judd" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District (District) filed an application for absolute water rights, based on their conditional water rights on "Four Counties Ditch Number 3." The State Engineers opposed the application and moved for summary judgment. The water court denied the Engineers' motion, but ruled as a matter of law that in order to perfect a conditional water storage right, the District needed to show that “it diverted and put to beneficial use water in excess of its existing absolute decrees.” Upon careful consideration of the water court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

In June 2002, Codiejo Apodaca and her stepsister (the Insureds) were injured in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, the Insureds were covered as resident relatives under an auto policy and a personal umbrella policy both issued by Respondent Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). The policy included uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in addition to bodily injury coverage. The umbrella policy provided excess liability for "occurrences" arising out of, among other things, "occupancy of a land vehicle by an insured for personal transportation." Allstate did not offer separate UM/UIM coverage in connection with the umbrella policy. The Insureds brought suit against Allstate for reformation of the umbrella policy to include UM/UIM coverage. In their view, Colorado law required Allstate to offer UM/UIM coverage in connection with the umbrella policy because the policy included automobile liability coverage. As such, the Insureds contended that UM/UIM coverage should have been incorporated into the umbrella policy as a matter of law. The trial court granted Allstate's motion to dismiss the suit, finding that only liability policies expressly linked to a specific, licensed Colorado vehicle were required to include mandatory UM/UIM insurance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, and on appeal, the Insureds argued that both the trial and appellate courts misread both the policy and Colorado law. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that an umbrella policy is not an "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy" as specified by Colorado law. Therefore, the Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Apodaca v. Allstate Ins. Co" on Justia Law

The Denver Post and its reporter Karen Crummy (the Post) requested access to Governor Bill Ritter's cell phone billing statements under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). The Governor provided access to cell phone bills for his state-paid Blackberry device but not to his personal cell phone. The Governor claimed that his personal cell phone bills were not "public records" contemplated by CORA. The appeals court dismissed the Post's suit. Upon review of the briefs submitted by the parties in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Post's complaint was "a conclusory assertion of a legal theory," and failed to make a cognizable case that the Governor's personal cell phone billing statements were public records under CORA. Therefore, Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Post's complaint. View "Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Steven Thomas and Thomas Properties, Inc. brought a contract-related claim against New Frontier Bank. The Bank had been placed in receivership. Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in its capacity as receiver of the bank, moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs received proper notice of the administrative procedures under FIRREA, but failed to comply with them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim. View "In Re Thomas v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp" on Justia Law

Respondent Michael Strauch was stabbed by an intoxicated person outside of Eden Nightclub on New Year's Eve. Eden is owned by Petitioner Build It and They Will Drink, Inc. (Build It). Mr. Strauch filed a number of claims against Build It, including general negligence, premises liability claims and a "dram shop" claim for his injuries after the stabbing. The trial court dismissed all claims after determining that the attack was not foreseeable, and that Build It had no duty to insure Mr. Strauch's safety once he left the nightclub. The Court of Appeals reversed only the dram shop liability claim, holding that Colorado law does not require consideration of "foreseeability" in assessing liability against a club that serves alcohol. Build It appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the plain language of Colorado Dram-Shop Statute defined the criteria for liability without mentioning "foreseeability." The Court held that an injury does not have to be foreseeable after the sale or service of alcohol. The Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment that held Build It liable for Respondent's injuries. View "Build It and They Will Drink, Inc. v. Strauch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant The State of Colorado appealed a district court order that suppressed test results performed on blood drawn from Defendant-Appellee Joshua Smith following a car accident. Police suspected Defendant was intoxicated. A passenger extracted from the car told police that Defendant had been driving. Paramedics took Defendant to the hospital, and police asked for blood samples. Police did not have a search warrant or ask for Defendant's consent prior to taking the samples. The nurse drew one sample, after which another officer advised Defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant waived his rights and did not object to, resist, complain about, or otherwise question any of the blood draws. The trial court concluded that police had probable cause to arrest Defendant for vehicular assault at the time of the draws. Nevertheless, the court suppressed the results of the tests performed because the State's "prior consent" statute required that the police ask Defendant for his consent prior to drawing the blood. Upon consideration of the arguments and the "prior consent" statute, the Supreme Court held that officers do not have to request a driver's consent to conduct a constitutional involuntary blood draw. Accordingly, the Court reversed the lower court's decision that suppressed Defendant's test results. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner Timothy Gognat appealed an appellate court's decision that awarded summary judgment to Respondent Chet Ellsworth, Steven Smith and MSD Energy, Inc. In his suit, Mr. Gognat alleged that Respondents misappropriated certain trade secrets he disclosed to them. In the late 1990s, Mr. Gognat developed information relating to "probable" oil and natural gas reserves in the Western Kentucky Area. This information included technical, geographical, geological and business maps, charts, plans, interpretations, calculations, summaries, and other documents. Mr. Gognat shared this information with Mr. Ellsworth, and the two created a joint venture, MSD Energy, to eventually develop the reserves. Mr. Gognat maintained that Respondents misappropriated the trade secrets in the documents by acquiring leases in Western Kentucky without adequately compensating him pursuant to the joint venture. The district court found that the statute of limitations barred Mr. Gognat's claim, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Gognat argued that his claim against Respondents was premised solely on activities dating from 2005. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. The Court found that the undisputed facts demonstrated that all of the proprietary information alleged to have been misappropriated constituted a single trade secret and this was known to Mr. Gognat more than three years prior to filing his complaint. Therefore, Mr. Gognat's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. View "Gognat v. Ellsworth" on Justia Law

Colorado state law makes it a felony for a person to have unlawful sexual contact with a child while occupying a "position of trust." Petitioner Mark Pellman appealed an order of the Court of Appeals that found that he was in a position of trust at the time of the unlawful contact between himself and his child victim. Petitioner was a friend of the victim's family, and from 2000-2005, visited with the family, attended the same church, and babysat the victim. In 2005, Petitioner chaperoned a trip to an amusement park when the alleged contact took place. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that he was only in a position of trust at specific times, the last of which was when he chaperoned the amusement park trip. The appellate court rejected this argument, and after review, the Supreme Court rejected it as well. The Supreme Court found that under the language of the applicable statute, a defendant might be in a position of trust through an ongoing a continuous supervisory relationship with the victim, regardless of whether or not the defendant was performing a specific supervisory task at the time of the unlawful contact. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the appellate court and affirmed its decision. View "Pellman v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Burlington Ditch, Reservoir & Land Company (Burlington) and Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) filed applications to change its 1885, 1908 and 1909 water rights. The changes to Burlington and FRICO's rights were precipitated by a new water supply project by the United Water & Sanitation District (United) and East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District (ECCV). Approximately fifty parties argued for their particular interests in relation to Burlington and FRICO's applications. The water court imposed conditions on Burlington and FRICO's historic water rights to prevent injury to all other interested parties' rights. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Burlington, FRICO, United and ECCV challenged the water court's order regarding its determination of the historical consumptive use of the water rights. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the water court's decision.