Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that CRCP 26(b) requires a trial court take an active role managing discovery on questions of scope. The trial court must determine the appropriate scope of discovery in light of the reasonable needs of the case and tailor discovery to those needs. To resolve a dispute regarding the proper scope of discovery, the trial court should, at a minimum, consider the cost–benefit and proportionality factors set forth in CRCP 26(b)(2)(F). The Court also held that title opinions may contain privileged attorney–client communications if the parameters of that doctrine are met. View "In re DCP Midstream, LLP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Dennis Shaw and First Horizon Home Loan Corporation challenged an appellate court's ruling that "constructive fraud" was sufficient to void a request for release of a deed of trust, arguing that actual fraud is required under CRS 38-39-102(8). The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the statute creates a narrow exception that voids the public trustee’s release of a deed of trust only when proof of actual fraud is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Shaw v. 17 West Mill St." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court considered a reformulated certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: whether Colorado’s premises liability statute applied as a matter of law only to activities and circumstances directly or inherently are related to the land. The Supreme Court held that the statute is not restricted solely to activities and circumstances that are directly or inherently related to the land. Instead, the Court held that the premises liability statute applied to conditions, activities, and circumstances on the property that the landowner is liable for in its legal capacity as a landowner. View "Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P." on Justia Law

Creditors-plaintiffs sued a Colorado LLC claiming the LLC authorized a distribution to members that bankrupted the company and left it unable to pay them. The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims of unlawful distribution and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing that no creditor had a right to sue for the distribution, nor a right to claim breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted the defendants' motion; the appellate court reversed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under Colorado law, LLC members are liable to the LLC, but not the LLC's creditors. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the manager of an insolvent LLC does not owe the creditors the same duty an insolvent corporation's directors owe a corporation's creditors. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's order. View "Weinstein v. Colborne Foodbotics, LLC" on Justia Law

The Denver Department of Human Services placed "A.C." in foster care when he was two days old. Before his first birthday, the juvenile court terminated his biological parents' rights, which made him available for adoption. The issue in this case centered on whether the prospective adoptive parents' due process rights were violated when the Department removed the child from their home without prior notice. At the time of the removal, the prospective parents had not yet initiated the adoption process. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that preadoptive foster patents do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred. View "M.S. v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Petitioner Joshua Dooly sought certiorari to appeal the court of appeals' judgment that affirmed the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. The trial court denied his request for new counsel, and instead, granted his existing counsel's motion to dismiss the application altogether. The appellate court upheld the district court, reasoning that Petitioner's counsel of record could file motions on Petitioner's behalf in clear contravention of his client's wishes. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss against Petitioner's wishes. The case was remanded back to the district court to reinstate Petitioner's application. View "Dooly v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The State filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court's suppression of drugs discovered in defendant's truck. Although the district court upheld the initial traffic stop, it found that defendant was illegally detained at the time of a narcotics dog sniff of his vehicle because the purpose for the initial stop had already been accomplished, and no other reasonable suspicion existed to support further investigation. The court therefore suppressed the results of the subsequent search. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the prosecution failed to present evidence supporting the police's suspicions that defendant had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime other than a traffic offense, they lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain him for further questioning or investigation. The contraband seized from his vehicle was therefore properly suppressed as the product of an illegal detention. View "Colorado v. Mason" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs initiated this action in 2005 for declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that the current Colorado public school financing system violated the Education Clause because the system failed to provide sufficient funding to support a "thorough and uniform" system of free public schools. Plaintiffs also claimed that local school districts' lack of sufficient financial resources, coupled with the system's restrictions on spending, prevented districts from exerting meaningful control over educational instruction and quality in violation of the Local Control Clause. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the public school financing system complied with the Colorado Constitution, and reversed the trial court's finding that the public school financing system was unconstitutional. View "Colorado v. Lobato" on Justia Law

The State appealed the denial of a motion to quash subpoenas that Respondent John Brothers served on the parents of an alleged child-victim of sexual assault. The subpoenas ordered the parents to appear at Respondent's preliminary hearing and to bring their minor son, the alleged victim. The State argued in its motion that the victim's testimony was not necessary for the probable cause determination, and that he stood to suffer unnecessary psychological harm if required to appear. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the county court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the motion to quash at the preliminary hearing. The Court agreed with the State that there was a possibility of harm to the child even if he was not ultimately required to testify. View "Colorado v. Brothers" on Justia Law

Police arrived at Respondent Kim Fuerst's residence in response to a possible protection order violation. Fuerst's wife cooperated with the police's request to answer the door, eventually giving the police consent to search the residence. Officers found a bedroom door locked. The record indicated that Respondent was in the bedroom at the time; police managed to unlock the door, and there was no express objection to that entry. Officers found Respondent sitting on the floor "and in the company of numerous firearms." The officers detained Respondent and removed him from the residence. Officers later learned Respondent was a convicted felon. Respondent was later charged with four counts of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and three counts of violation of the protection order. Respondent moved to suppress evidence of the firearms possession, arguing that his decision to silently remain behind the locked door inside the residence was not a valid consent to the police search. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the wife's free and voluntary consent to search was valid as to Respondent. View "Colorado v. Fuerst" on Justia Law