SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Douglas Edwards/Grant Sullivan

09SA213 (1 HOUR)

Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City and County of Broomfield in Adams, Broomfield, Boulder and Weld Counties.
Opposers-Appellants/Cross-Appellees:
Centennial Water and Sanitation District and City of Boulder,
v.
Applicant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
City and County of Broomfield,
and
Opposers-Appellees/Cross-Appellees:
City of Aurora, Brighton Ditch Company, City of Englewood, Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, City of Longmont, City of Louisville, New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir and Ditch Company, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Platteville Irrigating and Milling Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, City of Thornton, and City of Westminster,
and
Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e):
James R. Hall, Division Engineer, Water Division No. 1. / ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
)))))))))))) / For the Opposer-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Centennial Water and Sanitation District and City of Boulder:
Veronica A. Sperling
Eric R. Potyondy
Buchanan and Sperling, P.C.
For the Applicant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant City and County of Broomfield:
Harvey W. Curtis
David L. Kueter
Sheela S. Stack
Harvey W. Curtis & Associates
(filed joint brief)
For Amici Curiae Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District, and Lower Arkansas Valley Super Ditch Company, Inc.:
Peter D. Nichols
Trout Raley Montaño Witwer & Freeman PC
For Amicus Curiae The City of Colorado Springs:
Dennis M. Montgomery
Jennifer H. Hunt
Hill & Robbins, P.C.
Entry of Appearance City of Aurora:
Steven O. Sims
Adam T. DeVoe
John A. Helfrich
Holly K. Strablizky
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
(filed joint brief)
For Amici Curiae Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Coors Brewing Company and Castle Pines Metropolitan District:
Stephen H. Leonhardt
Joshua D. McMahon
Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae Castle Pines North Metropolitan District:
Austin Hamre
Duncan, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C.

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 04CW310

Docketed: August 6, 2009

At Issue: April 8, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the Water Court for Water Division 1 (“Water Court”) erred in ruling that Applicant-Appellee/Cross-Applicant, City and County of Broomfield (“Broomfield”), need not own or control all claimed substitute supplies at the time the decree is entered for the Water Court to confirm appropriative rights of exchange using such substitute supplies.

Whether the Water Court erred in determining that Broomfield is entitled to receive a decree confirming conditional appropriative rights of exchange using substitute supplies Broomfield does not own or control if the Water Court determines that Broomfield has completed a first step towards and can and will acquire the claimed substitute supplies it does not own or control.

Did the trial court err in determining that the first step standard applies to sources of substitute supply for a municipality’s appropriative rights of substitution and exchange.

If the first step standard is found by this Court to apply to a municipality’s sources of substitute supply, did the trial court err in applying the standard.

Did the trial court err in determining that the can and will standard applies to sources of substitute supply for a municipality’s appropriative rights of substitution and exchange.

If the can and will standard is found by this Court to apply to a municipality’s sources of substitute supply, did the trial court err in applying the standard.

______


Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:00 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC1036 (½ HOUR)

Petitioner:
The People of the State of Colorado,
In the Interest of Minor Children:
A. J. L., a/k/a A. J. C.; A. K. M. H.; and Q. D. J. W.;
and Concerning
Respondent:
A. P. L. / )))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Robert W. Loeffler
County Attorney
Sue S. Thibault
Assistant County Attorney
For the Minor Children:
Anne E. Parmley
Anne E. Parmley, PC
For the Respondent:
Judith J. Carlson

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA787

Docketed: December 15, 2009

At Issue: May 21, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals applied the proper standard of review in reversing the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights.

______


Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

08SC945 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Respondent:
Mark Joseph Gabriesheski. / )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Daniel May
District Attorney
Doyle Baker
Deputy District Attorney
For the Respondent:
Elizabeth A. McClintock
Theodore P. McClintock
McClintock & McClintock, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Bar Association:
Mary Jane Truesdell Cox
Cox & Baker LLC
and
Michael H. Berger
Jacobs Chase Frick Kleinkopf & Kelley, LLC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Office of Child’s Representative Linda Weinerman, Executive Director:
Nancy J. Walker-Johnson
and
Sheri Danz
Sarah Ehrlich
Colorado Office of Child’s Representative
(filed joint brief )
For Amicus Curiae The National Association of Counsel for Children:
Anne Kellogg
For Amicus Curiae Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center:
Jeffrey C. Koy
For Amicus Curiae University of Colorado Law School’s Juvenile and Family Law Program:
Colene Flynn Robinson

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA1016

Docketed: November 14, 2008

At Issue: March 30, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that conversations between a child and her guardian ad litem in a dependency and neglect case are confidential communications protected by attorney-client privilege.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that § 19-3-207(2), C.R.S. (2008), which governs the admissibility in criminal proceedings of statements made to treating professionals in dependency and neglect proceedings, precluded a social worker’s testimony in a criminal case about pressure placed on the child-victim to recant allegations of sexual abuse.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that § 13-90-107(1)(g), which bestows a privilege on communications between social workers and their clients in psychotherapy sessions, applies to a social worker who neither directed nor participated in psychotherapy with the child-victim and her family.

Whether jurisdiction is proper under section 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. (2008), as an appeal limited to a question of law or as an appeal from an order dismissing one of more counts of a charge.

______


SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Margrit Parker/Tricia Leakey

08SC997 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:
Ferrellgas, Inc., a Delaware corporation operating under the trade name Thermogas,
v.
Respondent:
Ellen Yeiser. / ))))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Tiffaney A. Norton
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C.
For the Respondent:
Timms R. Fowler
The Fowler Law Firm
and
Marc F. Bendinelli
W. Jospeh Lapham II
Bendinelli Law Office, P.C.
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Civil Justice League:
Christopher L. Ottele
Christopher Brady
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA494

Docketed: December 5, 2008

At Issue: May 12, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred when determining petitioner was not entitled to the full value of a resolved subrogation interest.

Whether the court of appeals erred when comparing petitioner’s statutory offer of settlement to the jury verdict instead of the final judgment awarded to respondent and further err when determining petitioner’s offer of settlement had to somehow include potential subrogated interests and, thus, err when denying costs to petitioner.

Whether the court of appeals erred when determining interest should be awarded to respondent on the verdict for a period of time instead of awarding interest on the judgment.

______


Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

09SC910 (½ HOUR)

Petitioner:
Colorado Department of Human Services,
and
State of Colorado Personnel Board,
v.
Respondent:
Norma Jean Maggard. / ))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioner Colorado Department of Human Services:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Daniel D. Domenico
Solicitor General
Jane Christman
Deputy Attorney General
Vincent E. Morscher
First Assistant Attorney General
Joseph F. Haughain
Senior Assistant Attorney General
For the Colorado State Personnel Board:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Roxane D. Baca
Senior Assistant Attorney General
For the Respondent:
Vonda G. Hall
Attorney at Law

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 09CA210

Docketed: October 27, 2009

At Issue: July 8, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the State Personnel Board’s decision upholding the termination of Respondent’s employment and directing the Personnel Board to reinstate the initial decision of the ALJ.

______


Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:00 p.m.

EN BANC

10SC104 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:
D. P. H. and A. J. B.,
v.
Respondent:
J. L. B.,
and Concerning
Minor Child:
A. B. / ))))))))))))))) / For the Petitioners:
Daniel M. Westhoff
Shaun Pearman
Rachel Anderson
The Pearman Law Firm, P.C.
For the Respondent:
Don D. Jacobson
Levin & Jacobson, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 08CA2207

Docketed: February 11, 2010

At Issue: June 25, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a parent may preclude a finding of abandonment by demonstrating a future intent to return to the child.

Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court should have delayed its determination of the adoption proceedings to allow father’s motion to enforce parental rights to be decided first.

______

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 10:00 a.m.

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Timothy Zimmerman/Catherine Ruhland

08SC1003 (½ HOUR)

Petitioner:
The People of the State of Colorado,
v.
Respondent:
David Wayne White. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Matthew S. Holman
First Assistant Attorney General
For the Respondent:
Douglas K. Wilson
Public Defender
Shann Jeffery
Deputy Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA184

Docketed: December 8, 2008

At Issue: May 6, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the district court’s decision that the challenged juror was a resident of the county where the trial took place.

______


Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:30 a.m.

EN BANC

09SC62 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company,
v.
Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:
Mid-Century Insurance Company. / )))))))))))))))) / For Petitioner/Cross Respondent:
Sophia H. Tsai
Light, Harrington & Dawes, P.C.
For Respondent/Cross Petitioner Mid-Century Insurance Company:
Robin L. Wick
Kimberly B. Schutt
Wick & Trautwein, LLC
For Amicus Curiae Colorado Division of Insurance:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Todd S. Larson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA2063

Docketed: January 26, 2009

At Issue: March 2, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether an automobile insurance policy provision limiting coverage for permissive drivers of insured vehicles to the minimum limits of liability insurance required by state law is valid and enforceable under Colorado law.

Whether the court of appeals erroneously determined that the notice of a limitation in coverage for permissive drivers in a renewal automobile insurance policy was not adequate to advise the named insured of the limitation.

Whether Colorado’s compulsory insurance laws allow the insurer of a private vehicle to contractually shift the statutory obligation to provide minimum insurance coverage to a permissive driver’s insurer.

Whether the operation of petitioner’s excess insurance clause and cross-petitioner’s excess insurance clause renders neither insurer primarily liable for damages caused by the insured such that each policy’s excess insurance clause is unenforceable and each insurer must respond as co-primary.

______

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 EN BANC

Bailiff: Jennifer Seidenberg/Rachel Jones

09SA374 (1 HOUR)

In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the King Consolidated Ditch Company, Morrison Consolidated Ditch Company, Los Pinos Ditch Company, Thompson-Epperson Ditch Company, Pine River Canal, Sullivan Ditch Company, Bear Creek and Pine River Ditch (Remmow Land Co., LP; Robert Williams d/b/a Williams Ranch; Jarrett F. Cook; Robert S. Dulin; and Susan Dulin), and Spring Creek Ditch Company, in the Pine River Drainage in La Plata County.
Appellant:
Proposed Intervenor The Southern Ute Indian Tribe,
v.
Opposers-Appellees:
King Consolidated Ditch Company; Morrison Consolidated Ditch Company; Los Pinos Ditch Company; Thompson-Epperson Ditch Company; Pine River Canal; Sullivan Ditch Company; Bear Creek and Pine River Ditch (Remmow Land Co., LP; Robert Williams d/b/a Williams Ranch; Jarrett F. Cook; Robert S. Dulin; and Susan W. Dulin); and Spring Creek Ditch Company. / ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) / For the Appellant:
Janice C. Sheftel
Katherine A. Burke
Adam T. Reeves
Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel, LLP
For the Opposer-Appellees:
Nancy Agro
Miller, Agro & Robbins, L.L.C.
and
Geoffrey M. Craig
The Craig Law Firm P.C.

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 7, 09CW22

Docketed: December 14, 2009

At Issue: June 9, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether a request for a water court to interpret the meaning of a previously entered decree is a “determination of a water right,” as that term is used in Section 37-92-302(1)(a), C.R.S. (2009), and, therefore, entitled to benefit from special statutory procedures, including resume notice.

Whether the “relation back” doctrine and C.R.C.P. 15(c) apply to amendments attempting to correct procedural errors in applications for determinations of water rights, including failure to verify such an application.

Whether the Southern Ute Indian Tribe met the requirements for intervention set forth in Section 37-92-304(3), C.R.S. (2009), in this case.

______


Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 2:30 p.m.

EN BANC

08SC667 (½ HOUR)

Petitioner:
Darkhanbayar Tumentsereg,
v.
Respondent:
The People of the State of Colorado. / ))))))))))) / For the Petitioner:
Douglas K. Wilson
Public Defender
Joseph Paul Hough
Deputy Public Defender
For the Respondent:
John W. Suthers
Attorney General
Katherine A. Hansen
Senior Assistant Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA1563

Docketed: August 22, 2008

At Issue: June 10, 2010

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in not finding that even if petitioner's convictions are upheld, he was nonetheless entitled to resentencing because (a) the district court erroneously classified the sexual assault conviction as a class two felony, and (b) the court erroneously believed the minimum possible sentence was the midpoint of the presumptive range.


Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:00 p.m.

EN BANC

10SA20 (1 HOUR)