Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Jesse Reynolds and the owners of several other ditches that divert water from La Jara Creek appealed an order of the Water Court that denied their claim for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that their appropriative rights to creek water were not limited to water flowing into the creek from the San Luis Valley Drain Ditch. Without directly addressing the merits of their claim, the water court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and Division Engineers (as well as other defendants) on the grounds that substantially the same issue had been litigated and decided against Plaintiffs in a prior declaratory action. The court concluded that all of the water rights of the parties in La Jara Creek were not only at issue, but were finally determined in that prior litigation, and therefore Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs' claims had not been determined in the prior litigation (either expressly or by implication), and that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court reversed the water court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reynolds v. Cotten" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 45, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 45 and its Titles stated a single subject: "public control of waters." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 45" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 3, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 3 and its Titles stated a single subject: "the public's rights in the waters of natural streams." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 3" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed a district court order that upheld a county court's decision that a six-year stattue of limitations did not bar Respondent Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc.'s claim against Pettiioner Daniel Hassler. Petitioner financed the purchase of a vehicle by entering into a security agreement with Account Broker's predecessor-in-interest in which the vehicle served as collateral. Petitioner defaulted on the loan, and the predecessor repossessed the vehicle and later sold it at auction. The precedessor applied the proceeds of the auction to the balance of the loan. The proceeds were insufficient to cover the balance; thus Petitioner was still held responsible for the deficiency. The debt was eventually transferred to Account Brokers who sued Petitioner to recover the deficiency less than six years after the vehicle was sold. The county and district courts ruled in favor of Account Brokers, determining that the statute of limitations did not bar Account Brokers' claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the controlling issue was not the date that the debt was made liquidated or determinable but the date the debt accrued. "[U]nder Colorado law and the express terms of the parties' agreement, the present debt became due when it was accelerated following [the predecessor's] repossession of the vehicle and demand for full payment on the debt, which occurred more than six years before the initiation of the present suit. Accordingly, the action [was] barred by the statute of limitations." View "Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, the Town of Minturn enacted annexation ordinances for nine parcels of property in response to annexation petitions filed in 2005, which claimed that Ginn (petitioner in this action) was the 100% owner of the land proposed to be annexed. Ginn and Respondent Sensible Housing Co. were involved in a quiet title action concerning portions of the annexed property, which commenced before Ginn filed the annexation petitions. Sensible sought judicial review of the annexation pursuant to section 31-12-116, C.R.S. (2011), asserting that Minturn exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by approving the annexation of the property without an election, due to the ongoing dispute as to the property’s title. The court of appeals agreed and applied the "priority rule" to the annexation proceedings, which states that "when more than one court can exercise jurisdiction over a matter, 'the court first acquiring jurisdiction [over] the parties and the subject matter has exclusive jurisdiction.'" Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the priority rule could not be applied to municipal annexation proceedings because those proceedings are a legislative function. View "Town of Minturn v. Sensible Housing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Tyler Wilburn announced his intent to introduce expert testimony of a learning disability to challenge whether he "knowingly" violated his bail bond condition, a mistake-of-fact defense (he missed his court date after he allegedly wrote down the wrong date). The prosecution maintained that Defendant had to plead not guilty by reason of insanity in order to introduce expert testimony of his mental condition, a plea which requires a "commitment" to a state mental health facility. The trial court agreed and ordered Defendant committed for forty-five days to a state facility to conduct a court-ordered mental examination. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and made the rule absolute: Defendant's proposed expert testimony of a learning disability was admissible under the procedures of section 16-8-107(3)(b), which requires notice and a court-ordered mental examination. Defendant was not required to plead insanity to challenge whether he possessed the mens rea for the offense with expert testimony concerning his learning disability. Under section 16-8-106, the trial court has discretion to consider the circumstances and the nature of Defendant's defense to set a reasonable time, place, and length for a court-ordered mental health examination. View "In re Colorado v. Wilburn" on Justia Law

The State brought an interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court's suppression of contraband seized from the defendant's vehicle on two separate occasions. In each case, after the defendant was arrested for driving under suspension, a police narcotics detection canine was brought to the scene and led around the defendant's truck, which had been parked and left at the location of her arrest. Also in each case, after the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, a search of the truck's cab revealed drug paraphernalia and suspected methamphetamine. The district court found that under these circumstances, the state constitution barred the police from bringing a trained narcotics detection dog within detection range of the defendant's vehicle without first having reasonable suspicion to believe it contained contraband, which the court found to be lacking in both cases. The Colorado Supreme Court held after it's review that an interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate under the state constitution any more than under the federal constitution, and that official conduct failing to compromise any legitimate interest in privacy cannot be deemed a search under the state constitution any more than under the federal constitution. Because narcotics dogs could not communicate anything more than reason to believe the defendant's truck either contained or did not contain contraband, no reasonable privacy interest was infringed upon in permitting narcotics dogs to sniff around the vehicle. The Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Esparza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed the court of appeals' opinion in "People v. Laeke" (08CA79 (Colo. App. Feb. 4, 2010)). The court held that when the prosecution has conceded that defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, he has a statutory right under Colorado's insanity statutes to a jury trial on both the merits and the affirmative defense of insanity. The court of appeals further held that a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is entered without a trial. After review of the applicable legal authority and court precedent, the Supreme Court held that a defendant does not have a statutory right to a jury trial on the merits and his affirmative defense of insanity when he enters a NGRI plea and the prosecution concedes defendant was insane. "The legislature articulated its intent when it amended the insanity statutes. The explicit legislative wording did not include an intent to create a substantive statutory right to a jury trial on the merits and the affirmative defense of insanity after it has been established that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime." The Court held that the Constitution is not violated when NGRI is entered without a trial on the merits and an affirmative defense of insanity. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Laeke" on Justia Law

Petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation employed Respondent William Hoeper as a pilot. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued Respondent a firearm under the federal statute that authorizes the TSA to deputize pilots as law enforcement officers to defend the aircraft should the need arise. After discontinuing its use of the type of aircraft Respondent had piloted for many years, Air Wisconsin required Respondent to undertake training and pass a proficiency test for a new aircraft. Respondent failed three proficiency tests, knowing that if he failed a fourth test, he would be fired. During the last test, Respondent became angry with the test administrators because he believed they were deliberately sabotaging his testing. Test administrators reported Respondent's angry outbursts during testing to the TSA that Respondent was "a disgruntled employee (an FFDO [Federal Flight Deck Officer] who may be armed)" and was "concerned about the whereabouts of [Respondents] firearm." Respondent brought suit against Air Wisconsin in Colorado for defamation under Virginia law. Air Wisconsin argued it was immune from defamation suits as this under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), and unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment. The jury found clear and convincing evidence that statements made by the airline test administrator were defamatory. Air Wisconsin appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals determined that the question of whether the judge or jury decided immunity under the ATSA was a procedural issue determined by Colorado law, and concluded that the trial court properly allowed the jury to decide the immunity question. Air Wisconsin appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, adding that the airline was not immune from suit or defamation under the ATSA. Furthermore, the Court held that the record supported the jury's finding of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. View "Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper" on Justia Law

In this case alleging sexual assault on a child, Defendant Yrineo Salazar sought to introduce evidence of an alternate suspect (the child's grandfather). Defendant asserted the alternate suspect had sexually assaulted his own daughter when she was a child and was present in the home when the incidents for which Defendant was charged allegedly occurred. Defendant thus argued the alternate had motive and opportunity to commit the charged offenses, and therefore, evidence of the alternate's prior sexual conduct was relevant and its probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. The Supreme Court determined after its review of the case that under its precedent, evidence of the alternate's prior sexual conduct with someone other than the victim was of "questionable relevance" to the identity of the perpetrator of the charged offense. "Even assuming the relevance of the alternate's prior sexual conduct, [the Court] concluded that the evidence should be excluded under the Colorado Rules of Evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger or confusing the issues and misleading the jury." Noting that the grandfather was never charged for the alleged abuse of his daughter, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that evidence was admissible in this case. View "In re People v. Salazar" on Justia Law