Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Colorado Public Utilities Commission challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court of Routt County to consider changing the venue in regard to a petition for judicial review, arguing that Petitioner Associated Governments of Northwestern Colorado failed to meet the requirements of section 40-6-115(1) and (5), C.R.S. (2011). Holding that section 40-6-115(5) pertained to venue and not jurisdiction, the Routt County District Court allowed a transfer of the case to the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Upon review, the Court agreed with the district court, and held that section 40-6-115(5) mandated venue and did not limit jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court discharged the rule. On remand, the Routt County District Court may transfer this case to the Denver District Court. View "In re Associated Gov'ts of Nw. Colo. v. Colo. Pub. Utils." on Justia Law

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

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

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

Defendant-Petitioner Thomas Lynn O'Hara, III was convicted of distribution of a schedule II controlled substance, adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to ninety-six years in the Department of Corrections. Prior to trial, Defendant moved unsuccessfully to suppress the State's wiretap evidence against him, contending, among other things, that the wiretaps were not properly authorized because the elected district attorney had not personally prepared or signed the applications to initiate or extend the wiretaps. On appeal, Defendant renewed his challenge to the wiretap evidence. The court of appeals held that the applicable law requires the attorney general or a district attorney to "specifically authorize a specific wiretap application," but the elected official "need not sign or personally submit the application." Because the court of appeals concluded that the record contained no finding by the trial court that the elected district attorney specifically authorized the wiretaps, it remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed in substance with the court of appeals' statutory interpretation, and affirmed the court's decision to remand for further proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that while the lack of the elected official's signature on the application is not fatal, in the absence of the elected official's signature, the requisite personal authorization cannot be presumed. "Under such circumstances, the prosecution must show compliance with section 16-15-102(1)(a) by establishing that the application was personally authorized by the attorney general or elected district attorney. This compliance may be shown through the sworn testimony or affidavit of the elected official, or similar proof." View "O'Hara v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC, with Martha Altman, Eric Mote, and John Davis (collectively, Students), filed a complaint against the University of Colorado's Board of Regents alleging that the Board's Weapons Control Policy 14-I (which prohibits the carrying of handguns on campus by all persons but certified law enforcement personnel) violates the Colorado Concealed Carry Act (CCA) and the Colorado Constitution's right to bear arms. The Board filed a motion to dismiss which the district court granted. The Students appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the Students stated a claim for relief because the CCA expressly applied to "all areas of the state." The court further concluded that the Students had stated a claim for relief under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the CCA's comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus. Accordingly, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that, by alleging the Policy violated the CCA, the Students stated a claim for relief. View "Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" on Justia Law

"Judicial redistricting is a truly 'unwelcome obligation.'" This case involved the redistricting of Colorado's congressional districts following the results of the 2010 census. The Supreme Court held that the district court adopted a lawful redistricting scheme in accordance with constitutional criteria, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the non-constitutional factors as set forth in C.R.S. 2-1-102 (2011). Furthermore, the Court held that the balancing was reasonable and supported by the evidence that was heard through the district court’s "thorough, inclusive and non-partisan proceedings." The Court affirmed the district court’s order that the secretary of state implement the adopted redistricting scheme in future congressional elections. View "Hall v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Petitioner Accord Human Resources, Inc. (Accord) is a professional employer organization that transacts business in Colorado along with four related entities. In 2004, Accord transferred a portion of its Colorado employees to another Accord entity with a lower unemployment tax rate and in doing so, reduced its unemployment tax burden. The Colorado Division of Employment and Training determined that it had authority to treat the various Accord entities as one for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes, thus erasing any tax advantage that could be gained through the employee transfer. Under this rationale, the Division issued a delinquent tax notice to Accord. Accord appealed, and the hearing officer reversed. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's Final Order and reinstated the hearing officer's decision. The Division sought to reverse the court of appeals decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that nothing gave the Division authority to combine separate employer tax accounts into one account for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes. View "Colorado Div. of Employment & Training v. Accord Human Resources, Inc" on Justia Law