SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Bailiff: Heather Fredriksen
9:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SA338 ( 1 HOUR) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE PAGOSA AREA WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND THE SAN JUAN WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN ARCHULETA COUNTY Applicants-Appellees: PAGOSA AREA WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT and SAN JUAN WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, v. Opposer-Appellant: TROUT UNLIMITED, Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R.1(e): DIVISION ENGINEER, WATER DIVISION NO. 7. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Applicants-Appellees Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District and San Juan Water Conservancy District: Evan D. Ela Collins Cockrel & Cole For the Opposer-Appellant Trout Unlimited: Andrew Peternell For Amicus Curiae City & County of Denver acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners: Patricia L. Wells Michael L. Walker Casey S. Funk For Amicus Curiae City of Aurora: Steven O. Sims Adam T. DeVoe John A. Helfrich Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck, P.C. For Amici Curiae City of Colorado Springs and the Southwestern Water Conservation District: David W. Robbins Dennis M. Montgomery Jennifer H. Hunt Hill & Robbins, P.C. For Amicus Curiae Western Resource Advocates: Bart Miller Western Resource Advocates
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 7, 04CW85 Docketed: October 30, 2006 At Issue: April 26, 2007 issues cont’d on next page
1
06SA338 issues cont’d from previous page
ISSUE(S): Whether Applicants have the requisite reasonably anticipated requirement for the decreed amount of water. Whether, as a matter of law, Applicants have a reasonably anticipated requirement for the decreed amount of water. Whether Applicants may obtain water rights in amounts premised on growth 100 years into the future. Whether Applicants may obtain water rights in amounts premised on hypothetical water availability conditions. Whether the evidence that Applicants have a reasonably anticipated requirement for the decreed amount of water. Whether Applicants substantiated their population projections. Whether Applicants substantiated their projections of per capita water usage. Whether Applicants possess the intent necessary to appropriate water rights in the amounts and for the uses decreed. Whether the court should have reduced the decree by the amount of water Applicants intend to sell for use outside their boundaries. Whether the court should have denied claimed water uses for which Applicants did not demonstrate the requisite specific plan and intent. ______________________________________________________________________________
2
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 12, 2007
10:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SC92 ( 1/2 HOUR) Petitioner: DEBBIE JO PRINGLE, v. Respondent: MARK VALDEZ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Petitioner: John M. Vaught Terence M. Ridley Alissa S. Hecht Andrew Unthank Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, LLP For the Respondent: Bradley A. Levin Jeremy A. Sitcoff Roberts Levin & Patterson, P.C. and Daniel J. Caplis Caplis, Scipione & Deasy, LLC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: Victoria C. Swanson Sears & Swanson, P.C. For Amicus Curiae Civil Justice League: Lee Mickus Cedar R. Holmgren Snell & Willmer, L.L.P.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA1210 Docketed: March 16, 2006 At Issue: April 16, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in reading section 42-4-237(7), C.R.S. (2005) to limit only “pain and suffering” damages, rather than all non-economic damages presumptively caused by a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt. ______________________________________________________________________________
3
Oral Argument: Tuesday, June 12, 2007
10:30 a.m. EN BANC
06SC446 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioner: HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 28, in the County of El Paso and State of Colorado, v. Respondent: BRUCE W. BARBOUR. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Petitioner: Patrick B. Mooney Stephen G. Everall Semple, Miller, Mooney & Farrington, P.C.
For the Respondent: Sharyn E. Dreyer Colorado Education Association
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1573 Docketed: July 12, 2006 At Issue: March 27, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether a school district is required by section 22-63-203(3), C.R.S. (2006), to give a nonrenewed probationary teacher a second written notice after the teacher has been given a written notice of intention to nonrenew and has had actual notice of the nonrenewal. Whether a probationary teacher who has been improperly nonrenewed is entitled to recover full back pay without offset of earnings from alternative employment. Whether a court may order the reemployment of a probationary teacher after the term of his contract has ended and he has been awarded a damages remedy for the school district’s failure to employ him for the contract term. ______________________________________________________________________________
4
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 Bailiff: Jason Astle
9:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SC499 ( 1 HOUR) Petitioner: MARY BRODEUR, individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE of DENNIS BRODEUR, deceased, v. Respondents: AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and AIG CLAIM SERVICE, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Petitioner: Brad R. Irwin Chris L. Ingold Asher M.B. Ritmiller Irwin & Boesen, P.C. and Dennis P. Walker For the Respondent: Ronald H. Nemirow Jennifer C. Madsen Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association: Bradley A. Levin Roberts Levin & Patterson, P.C. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers Association: Thomas L. Kanan McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP For Amius Curiae Self Insurers’ Association: Douglas J. Kotarek Devi C. Yorty Hall & Evans, L.L.C. For Amicus Curiae Colorado Civil Justice League: Richard A. Westfall Peter J. Krumholz Hale Friesen, LLP For Amicus Curiae Pinnacol Assurance: Harvey D. Flewelling Pinnacol Assurance issues cont’d on next page
5
06SC499 issues cont’d from previous page
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1710 Docketed: August 7, 2006 At Issue: April 30, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether the trial court erred in its finding of when a bad faith tort claim began to accrue for statute of limitations purposes while an administrative proceeding involving sanctions was ongoing. Whether it was an error for the court of appeals and the trial court to dismiss Petitioner’s fraud claims by incorrectly characterizing a letter by Respondent’s attorney as a legal opinion rather than a factual misrepresentation, or in the alternative, was it an error to fail to recognize that the letter qualifies for the exception to the legal opinion rule for fraud claims. Whether the dismissal of a breach of fiduciary duty claim against Respondent was improper because the conduct involved insurance mandated by the Workers’ Compensation Act. Whether the court of appeals should have recognized that the public nature of workers’ compensation insurance program was sufficient to satisfy the “public impact” component of claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. ______________________________________________________________________________
6
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
10:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SA320 ( 1/2 HOUR) Plaintiff-Appellant: THE FORT LYON CANAL COMPANY, v. Defendants-Appellees: HIGH PLAINS A&M, LLC, MAGRO, LLC, 136th and COLORADO, LLC, WOLLERT ENTERPRISES, INC, and STEVEN J. WITTE, DIVISION ENGINEER, WATER DIVISION 2. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Plaintiff-Appellant: John S. Lefferdink Lefferdink Law Office, LLC
For the Defendants-Appellees: Robert J. Bruce Lawlis & Bruce, LLC
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 2, 04CW39 Docketed: October 16, 2006 At Issue: April 13, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether the Division 2 Water Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees concerning the interpretation of a Fort Lyon bylaw? ______________________________________________________________________________
7
Oral Argument: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
10:30 a.m. EN BANC
07SA65 ( 1 HOUR) In re: Plaintiffs: AARON STAMP and KELLY STAMP, v. Defendants: THE VAIL CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation d/b/a VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., and MARK CHARD; Third Party Defendant: TERRY DELLIQUADRI. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Plaintiffs: James G. Heckbert William R. Gray Purvis, Gray & Murphy, LLP and John A. Vanderbloemen
For the Defendants: Peter W. Rietz Kimberly A. Viergever The Rietz Law Firm, LLC
Original Proceeding, District Court, Eagle County, 05CV345 Docketed: February 28, 2007 At Issue: April 25, 2007
ISSUE(S): Where an action for wrongful death has been brought against a ski area operator, is the statutory damage limitation to be applied controlled by the Colorado Wrongful Death Act or the Colorado Ski Safety Act? Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add a claim for exemplary damages. ______________________________________________________________________________
8
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Oral Argument: Thursday, June 14, 2007 Bailiff: Teri Scott
9:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SA303 ( 1 HOUR) CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, IN EAGLE AND GRAND COUNTIES, COLORADO. Applicant-Appellee: UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY v. Opposers-Appellants: HAROLD (“HAL”) D. SIMPSON, State Engineer; ALAN C. MARTELLARO, Division Engineer for Water Division 5; COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD; CITY OF AURORA, through the Homestake Project; CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, through the Homestake Project; and COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Applicant-Appellee: Glenn E. Porzak P. Fritz Hollman Kevin J. Kinnear Eli A. Feldman Porzak Browning & Bushong, LLP
For the Opposers-Appellants: John W. Suthers Attorney General Paul L. Benington Assistant Attorney General Alexandra L. Davis Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources and Environment Section Water Rights Unit
Appeal from the District Court, Water Division No. 5, 03CW78 Docketed: September 25, 2006 At Issue: April 30, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether a water court may fix by decree the future mix of water uses by an out-of-priority diverter, and thereby relieve the diverter from accounting for its actual mix of water uses and actual out-of-priority depletions. Whether the water court erred by failing to hold the applicant for approval of a plan for augmentation to strict proof of the actual out-of-priority depletions to be replaced under the plan for augmentation. ______________________________________________________________________________
9
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 14, 2007
10:00 a.m. EN BANC
06SC624 ( 1/2 HOUR) Petitioner: DONALD C. HESSE, II, v. Respondent: COLLEEN S. MCCLINTIC, D.C. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) For the Petitioner: Colin C. Campbell Casey A. Quillen Campbell, Latiolais & Ruebel, P.C.
For the Respondent: William L. Keating Steven R. Polidori Kristin D. Sanko Fogel, Keating, Wagner, Polidori & Shafner, P.C.
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0068 Docketed: September 22, 2006 At Issue: May 9, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred in holding the evidence could not support a theory of comparative negligence despite the jury’s finding that Plaintiff was 30% liable for the subject accident. Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that animals on a roadway create a sudden emergency exonerating the lead driver from fault as a matter of law. ______________________________________________________________________________
10
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 14, 2007
10:30 a.m. EN BANC
06SC591 ( 1 HOUR) ) ) WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL ) AUTHORITY, ) ) v. ) ) ) Respondent: ) THE CORNERSTONE GROUP XXII, L.L.C. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner: For the Petitioner: Corey Y. Hoffmann Hayes, Phillips, Hoffmann & Carberry, P.C. and Steven J. Dawes Light Harrington & Dawes, P.C. For the Respondent: Thomas Leland Tanya E. Milligan Messner & Reeves, LLC For Amici Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation and Arthur Fast: Meredith A. Kapushion The Holt Group, LLC and Timothy Sandefur Pacific Legal Foundation
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0279 Docketed: September 12, 2006 At Issue: April 13, 2007
ISSUE(S): Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that a condemning authority could be compelled by a redeveloper to exercise its power of eminent domain through principles of estoppel in a situation when the landowners do not want their property condemned. ______________________________________________________________________________
11