Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

To address economic conditions and projections demonstrating a severely underfunded plan, the Colorado General Assembly approved measured designed to protect present and future retirees by providing an adequately pension program. This appeal centered on changes made to the annual cost of living (COLA) that applied to increase each retiree's vested base retirement benefit. Plaintiffs in this case were retired public employees who contended that they had a contract with the State entitling each of them, upon retirement, to have their base pension benefit annually adjusted by the specific COLA formula in existence at the time they were eligible to retire, for the rest of their lives without change. The district court ruled they had no such contract right to an unchangeable COLA formula. The court of appeals disagreed, finding the retirees had a contract right to the formula in place at the time of eligibility for retirement or actual retirement based on the so-called "public policy exception," and remanded for further review to determine whether the legislature's act violated the Contract Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals, and agreed with the district court. The appellate court's judgment was reversed that the district court's judgment reinstated. View "Justus v. Colorado Public Employee's Retirement Association Pension Plan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting title and ballot title and submission clauses for initiative 2013-2014 #89. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or that the title was not clear. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #89" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 90 and 93. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90 and #93" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed actions of the Title Board in setting titles and ballot title and submission clauses for initiatives 2013-2014 85, 86 and 87. Proponents complained that the titles did not contain one subject or fairly reflect the purpose of the proposed initiatives. The Court found no reversible error and affirmed the Title Board. View "In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #85, #86, and #87" on Justia Law

After the Title Board set titles and submission clauses for Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103, petitioners moved for a rehearing, claiming the initiative contained more than one subject and was impermissibly vague. One of the initiative's representatives was unable to attend the rehearing. The Secretary of State's office suggested that a designated representative withdraw and a substitute alternate attend the hearing. The Title Board allowed the substitution and proceeded to deny the petitioner's motion. On appeal, petitioners argued that the proposed initiative still contained too many subjects and was impermissibly vague. Furthermore, the argued the Title Board did not have authority to allow the substitute representative. The Supreme Court agreed that the Title Board's approval of the substitute was improper. Therefore, the Court reversed the Title Board's action and remanded the case back to the Board without decision on claims that the initiative addressed more than one subject or was vague. View "In re Proposed Initiative 2013-2014 #103" on Justia Law

The Division of Motor Vehicles (a section of the Department of Revenue), revoked petitioner Andrew Hanson's driver's license following a hearing whereby it was determined petitioner refused a blood alcohol test in violation of state law. At the revocation hearing, the arresting officer failed to appear, and petitioner moved for dismissal of the administrative action to revoke his license. The hearing officer denied the request and submitted the officer's report into evidence. Both the district court and the court of appeals affirmed the Department. Petitioner appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals. "When [petitioner] refused, he violated section 42-2-126(3)(c), C.R.S. (2011). The hearing officer was not required to consider the legality of the legality of the first police officer's contact … because any evidence regarding the legality of the initial contact … is irrelevant for the purpose of revoking his license for refusing to take the blood or breath test." View "Hanson v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Division of Motor Vehicles (a section of the Department of Revenue), revoked petitioner Tom Francen's driver's license following a hearing whereby it was determined petitioner had operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of the statutory minimum. The district court reversed, holding that the stop of petitioner's vehicle was not supported by a reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the legality of the initial contact between petitioner and the police was not relevant in the civil administrative proceeding to revoke the driver's license. Petitioner appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals. View "Francen v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Public Service Company of Colorado applied for a tax refund from the state Department of Revenue. The company argued that it was entitled to a refund because it paid taxes when it was actually eligible for an exemption. The district court held in favor of the company, concluding that electricity was tangible personal property and that the production of electricity constituted manufacturing, thus entitling the company to the exemption (the "manufacturing exemption" under 39-26-709(1)(a)(II) C.R.S. (2013)). Upon review of the Department's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that section 39-26-104(1)(d.1) applied in this case: electricity did not qualify as tangible personal property, and that the Code "contemplate[d] that 'electricity furnished and sold'" was to be taxed as a service. View "Department of Revenue v. Public Service Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner and State Representative Debbie Benefield, and other current or former members of the Colorado House of Representatives, appealed the court of appeals' judgment which reversed the district court's order denying costs and attorney fees for the Colorado Republican Party. In 2006, the Party submitted an Open Records Act request to each petitioner seeking access to responses to a 2005 survey that contained various constituents' viewpoints on a variety of legal, political and social issues. When petitioners declined to make the surveys available, the Party sued to get access. The Party ultimately got 925 of 1584 surveys it requested. The Party then moved for costs and fees as the "prevailing applicant." The Supreme Court concluded that because section 24-72-204(5), "when properly construed," mandated an award in favor of any person who applied for and received a district court order requiring a custodian to permit inspection of a public record. Because the appellate court was correct in its interpretation, the Supreme Court affirmed its judgment. View "Benefield v. Colorado Republican Party" on Justia Law

Proponents Mike Spaulding and Natalie Menten proposed Initiative 76 which sought to repeal and replace the existing manner of triggering and conducting a recall election under article XXI of the Colorado Constitution, and to institute a new constitutional right to recall state and local non-elected officers. The Title Board set a title and submission clause for the initiative. Registered elector Philip Hayes objected to the Board's action. The Board modified the title and submission clause in response to Hayes' objections, but otherwise denied his motion for rehearing. The proponents contended that the initiative, title and submission clause addressed a single subject and were in compliance with state law. The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded the Title Board acted unconstitutionally in setting a title for the initiative. The Board's action was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76" on Justia Law