Legal Connection Updates http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36862 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/tZed3uqa-uM/ Updates 13th Judicial District court appointments judge appointments Sedgwick County Nominees Selected for Sedgwick County Court Vacancy On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the selection of two nominees to fill a vacancy on the Sedgwick County Court. The vacancy will be created by the resignation of Hon. Tera N. Neugebauer, effective May 1, 2017. Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:46:28 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/nominees-selected-sedgwick-county-court-vacancy/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the selection of two nominees to fill a vacancy on the Sedgwick County Court. The vacancy will be created by the resignation of Hon. Tera N. Neugebauer, effective May 1, 2017.</p> <p>The two nominees are James Dolezal of Julesburg and Belinda Obermier of Julesburg. James Dolezal is an Investment Advisor Representative at JCD Wealth Management. Belinda Obermier is at Cabela&#8217;s in Sydney, Nebraska.</p> <p>Under the Colorado Constitution, the governor has 15 days in which to appoint one of the nominees to the vacancy. Comments regarding either of the nominees may be emailed to the governor at <a href="mailto:gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us">gov_judicialappointments@state.co.us</a>. For more information about the candidates, <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Judge_Nominees/JD13%20-%20JNeugebauer%20nominees%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/tZed3uqa-uM" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/nominees-selected-sedgwick-county-court-vacancy/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/nominees-selected-sedgwick-county-court-vacancy/ 2017-04-21 15:46 +00:00 2017-04-21 09:46 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36860 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/KVjiaWYs7yw/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court constitutional law criminal law dui law Fourth Amendment motor vehicle law Colorado Supreme Court: Warrantless Blood Draw on Unconscious Driver Does Not Violate Fourth Amendment The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. Hyde</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017. Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:35:31 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-warrantless-blood-draw-unconscious-driver-not-violate-fourth-amendment/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA291.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>People v. Hyde</em></a> on Monday, April 17, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Searches and Seizures—Warrantless Blood Draw— Consent to Search. </em></p> <p>In this interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether a warrantless blood draw conducted on an unconscious driver pursuant to Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. The court explained that by driving in Colorado, the driver consented to the terms of the statute, including its requirement that “[a]ny person who is dead or unconscious shall be tested to determine the alcohol or drug content of the person’s blood.” The court concluded that the driver’s prior statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment; therefore, the blood draw conducted in this case was constitutional. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the blood-draw evidence.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/KVjiaWYs7yw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-warrantless-blood-draw-unconscious-driver-not-violate-fourth-amendment/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-warrantless-blood-draw-unconscious-driver-not-violate-fourth-amendment/ 2017-04-21 15:35 +00:00 2017-04-21 09:35 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36858 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/aNSY_cZtCPU/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court constitutional law criminal law dui law Fourth Amendment motor vehicle law Colorado Supreme Court: All Motorists in Colorado Consent to Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute by Driving The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. Simpson</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017. Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:32:49 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-motorists-colorado-consent-colorados-expressed-consent-statute-driving/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA330.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Simpson</a></em> on Monday, April 17, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Searches and Seizures—Warrantless Blood Draw—Consent to Search.</em></p> <p>Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, provides that any motorist who drives on the roads of the state has consented to take a blood or breath test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer with probable cause to suspect the motorist of driving under the influence. In this interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s ruling that an advisement accurately informing defendant of the statute amounted to coercion that rendered his consent to a blood test involuntary and required suppression of the test result. The court explained that by driving in Colorado, defendant consented to the terms of the statute, including its requirement that he submit to a blood draw under the circumstances present in this case. The court concluded that defendant’s prior statutory consent satisfied the consent exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment; therefore, the blood test conducted in this case was constitutional. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression of the test result.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/aNSY_cZtCPU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-motorists-colorado-consent-colorados-expressed-consent-statute-driving/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-motorists-colorado-consent-colorados-expressed-consent-statute-driving/ 2017-04-21 15:32 +00:00 2017-04-21 09:32 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36856 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/RhdwAOmQNXE/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court criminal law dui law Fourth Amendment search and seizure Colorado Supreme Court: Use of Refusal to Consent to Blood Test as Evidence Does Not Violate Fourth Amendment The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Fitzgerald v. People</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017. Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:29:38 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-use-refusal-consent-blood-test-evidence-not-violate-fourth-amendment/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC340.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fitzgerald v. People</a></em> on Monday, April 17, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Searches and Seizures—Refusal to Submit to 12 Blood-Alcohol Testing—Admission of Refusal Evidence.</em></p> <p>The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s refusal to consent to blood-alcohol testing as evidence of guilt at trial for a drunk-driving offense, in accordance with the terms of Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, C.R.S. § 42-4-1301.1, violates the Fourth Amendment. Because the use of such refusal evidence does not impermissibly burden a defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches, the court concluded that the use of such refusal evidence does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/RhdwAOmQNXE" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-use-refusal-consent-blood-test-evidence-not-violate-fourth-amendment/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-use-refusal-consent-blood-test-evidence-not-violate-fourth-amendment/ 2017-04-21 15:29 +00:00 2017-04-21 09:29 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36854 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/mxbcE8WSSLI/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 4/20/2017 On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions. Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:09:52 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4202017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1014.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Furber v. Taylor</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-8033.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em></em><em>United States v. McAbee</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-6316.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Myers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6007.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>United States v. Boyd</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1079.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Todd v. Raemisch</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/mxbcE8WSSLI" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4202017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4202017/ 2017-04-21 15:09 +00:00 2017-04-21 09:09 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36852 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/ZlAMR8RfbdU/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 4/20/2017 On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued eight published opinions and 29 unpublished opinions. Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:45:35 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-4202017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued eight published opinions and 29 unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/13CA2318-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em>People v. Sifuentes</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/14CA0339-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em>People v. Wiseman</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/14CA2417-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em>People v. Butson</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/15CA0878-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em></em><em>In re Marriage of Dean and Cook</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/15CA1352-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em>People v. Perez</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/15CA1557-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em></em><em>In re Estate of Owens</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/16CA0388-PD.pdf" target="_blank"><em></em><em>In re Estate of Gadash</em></a></p> <p><em><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/16CA0598-PD.pdf" target="_blank">Dolan v. Fire &amp; Police Pension Association</a></em></p> <p>Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2017/39034504-20-17.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/ZlAMR8RfbdU" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-4202017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-court-appeals-announcement-sheet-4202017/ 2017-04-20 15:45 +00:00 2017-04-20 09:45 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36850 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/Ayq5bTkSfMo/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 4/19/2017 On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions. Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:23:13 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4192017/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-8131.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Huckfeldt v. State of Wyoming</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1398.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Jones v. Archuleta</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-7002.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Brownrigg v. Colvin</em></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-6231.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm Fire &amp; Casualty Co.</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/Ayq5bTkSfMo" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4192017/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-4192017/ 2017-04-20 15:23 +00:00 2017-04-20 09:23 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36841 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/idKBmHtn45c/ Legislation business law criminal law domestic relations law education law family law government law HB 17-1012 HB 17-1110 HB 17-1138 HB 17-1174 HB 17-1193 health law insurance law juvenile law local government mental health motor vehicle law SB 17-036 SB 17-068 SB 17-088 SB 17-112 SB 17-115 SB 17-137 tax law Bills Limiting Evidence in Groundwater Appeals, Expanding Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and More Signed On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed 11 bills into law. To date, he has signed 158 bills this legislative session. The bills signed Tuesday include a bill limiting the evidence that may be submitted in appeals from groundwater decisions, a bill expanding the exception for possession of sexually exploitative material to prosecutors and others [&#8230;] Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:10:10 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/bills-limiting-evidence-groundwater-appeals-expanding-juvenile-court-jurisdiction-signed/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed 11 bills into law. To date, he has signed 158 bills this legislative session. The bills signed Tuesday include a bill limiting the evidence that may be submitted in appeals from groundwater decisions, a bill expanding the exception for possession of sexually exploitative material to prosecutors and others involved in investigations, a bill giving the juvenile court jurisdiction to decide parental responsibilities issues in juvenile issues, and more. The bills signed Tuesday are summarized here.</p> <ul> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1012" target="_blank">HB 17-1012</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Creation of a Pueblo Chile License Plate,&#8221; by Rep. Daneya Esgar and Sen. Leroy Garcia. The bill creates the Pueblo chile special license plate. In addition to the standard motor vehicle fees, the plate requires 2 one-time fees of $25.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1110" target="_blank">HB 17-1110</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning Juvenile Court Jurisdiction Regarding Matters Related to Parental Responsibilities in a Juvenile Delinquency Case,&#8221; by Rep. Susan Beckman and Sen. Nancy Todd. The bill allows the juvenile court to take jurisdiction involving a juvenile in a juvenile delinquency case and subsequently enter orders addressing parental responsibilities and parenting time and child support in certain circumstances.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1138" target="_blank">HB 17-1138</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Reporting of Hate Crimes by Law Enforcement Agencies,&#8221; by Rep. Joseph Salazar and Sen. Angela Williams. The bill requires the Department of Public Safety to include in its annual hearing information concerning reports submitted by law enforcement agencies about crimes committed in the state during the previous year, including but not limited to information concerning reports of bias-motivated crimes.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1174" target="_blank">HB 17-1174</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Establishment of an Exception for Rural Counties from the Limitations on the Establishment of a Local Improvement District to Fund the Construction of a Telecommunications Service Improvement for Advanced Service,&#8221; by Rep. James Wilson and Sens. Lucia Guzman &amp; Larry Crowder. The bill allows a rural county with a population of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants to establish a local improvement district to fund an advanced service improvement in an unserved area of the county.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb17-1193" target="_blank">HB 17-1193</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Installation of Small Wireless Service Infrastructure within a Local Government&#8217;s Jurisdiction, and, in Connection Therewith, Clarifying that an Expedited Permitting Process Applies to Small Cell Facilities and Small Cell Networks and that the Rights-of-Way Access Afforded Telecommunications Providers Extends to Broadband Providers and to Small Cell Facilities and Small Cell Networks,&#8221; by Reps. Tracy Kraft-Tharp &amp; Jon Becker and Sens. Andy Kerr &amp; Jack Tate. The bill clarifies that the expedited permitting process established for broadband facilities applies to small cell facilities and small cell networks, and that the rights-of-way access afforded to telecommunications providers for the construction, maintenance, and operation of telecommunications and broadband facilities extend to broadband providers as well as small cell facilities and small cell networks.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-036" target="_blank">SB 17-036</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning Groundwater,&#8221; by Sens. Don Coram &amp; Ray Scott and Reps. Jon Becker &amp; Jeni Arndt. The bill limits the evidence that a district court may consider, when reviewing a decision or action of the commission or state engineer on appeal, to the evidence presented to the commission or state engineer.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-068" target="_blank">SB 17-068</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning Early Support for Student Success Through Access to School Counselors, and, in Connection Therewith, Serving All Grades Through the Behavioral Health Care Professional Matching Grant Program and the School Counselor Corps Grant Program,&#8221; by Sen. Nancy Todd and Rep. Jonathan Singer. The bill adds elementary schools to the list of public schools eligible to receive a grant through the behavioral health care professional matching grant program.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-088" target="_blank">SB 17-088</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Criteria Used by a Health Insurer to Select Health Care Providers to Participate in the Insurer&#8217;s Network of Providers, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,&#8221; by Sens. Angela Williams &amp; Chris Holbert and Reps. Kevin Van Winkle &amp; Edie Hooten. The bill requires health insurers to develop and use standards for selecting participating providers for its network and tiering providers if the insurer carries a tiered network.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-112" target="_blank">SB 17-112</a>:</strong> &#8220;Concerning a Clarification of the Effect of Statutes of Limitations on the Dispute Resolution Process when a Taxpayer Owes Sales or Use Tax to One Local Government but has Erroneously Paid the Disputed Tax to Another Local Government,&#8221; by Sen. Tim Neville and Rep. Dan Pabon. The bill seeks to clarify the General Assembly&#8217;s intent when it enacted a dispute resolution process in 1985 to address a situation when a taxpayer paid a sales and use tax to one local government when it should have instead paid that disputed amount to a different local government.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-115" target="_blank">SB 17-115</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning Possession of Sexually Exploitative Material by Persons Involved in Sexually Exploitative Material Cases,&#8221; by Sen. John Cooke and Reps. Mike Foote &amp; Yeulin Willett. Under current law there is an exception to the crime of possession of sexually exploitative material for peace officers while in the performance of their duties. The bill expands the exception to a prosecutor, criminal investigator, crime analyst, or other individual who is employed by a law enforcement agency or district attorney&#8217;s office and performs or assists in investigative duties.</li> <li><strong><a href="http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-137" target="_blank">SB 17-137</a>: </strong>&#8220;Concerning the Continuation of the Colorado Health Service Corps Advisory Council,&#8221; by Sens. Nancy Todd &amp; Michael Merrifield and Rep. Dominique Jackson. The bill continues the Colorado Health Service Corps Advisory Council indefinitely.</li> </ul> <p>For a list of all of Governor Hickenlooper&#8217;s 2017 legislative decisions, <a href="https://www.colorado.gov/governor/legislative-actions" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/idKBmHtn45c" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/bills-limiting-evidence-groundwater-appeals-expanding-juvenile-court-jurisdiction-signed/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/bills-limiting-evidence-groundwater-appeals-expanding-juvenile-court-jurisdiction-signed/ 2017-04-19 14:10 +00:00 2017-04-19 08:10 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36847 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/47hfx3d9rwg/ Case Law business law Colorado Supreme Court corporate law general jurisdiction interlocutory appeal litigation Colorado Supreme Court: General Personal Jurisdiction Only Appropriate when Business “Essentially at Home” in Colorado The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Clean Energy Collective, LLC v. Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017. Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:09:56 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-general-personal-jurisdiction-appropriate-business-essentially-home-colorado/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA324.pdf" target="_blank">Clean Energy Collective, LLC v. Borrego Solar Systems, Inc</a>.</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Constitutional Law—Personal Jurisdiction—General Jurisdiction—Corporations and Business Organizations.</em></p> <p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause to review the trial court’s  conclusion that defendant Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. is subject to general  personal jurisdiction in Colorado. Because the trial court did not assess whether Borrego was essentially at home in Colorado, the court concluded it did not fully apply the test announced in <em>Magill v. Ford Motor Co.</em>, 2016 CO 57, 379 P.3d 1033, and therefore erred in exercising general personal jurisdiction over Borrego. Applying the complete test, the court further concluded that Borrego is not subject to general jurisdiction in this state. The rule to show cause was made absolute and the case was remanded for further proceedings.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/47hfx3d9rwg" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-general-personal-jurisdiction-appropriate-business-essentially-home-colorado/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-general-personal-jurisdiction-appropriate-business-essentially-home-colorado/ 2017-04-19 14:09 +00:00 2017-04-19 08:09 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=36845 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/JDL34uxewM8/ Case Law breach of contract Colorado Supreme Court construction law contract law real estate law Colorado Supreme Court: Privity of Contract Must Exist for Breach of Warranty of Suitability Claim The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Forest City Stapleton, Inc. v. Rogers</em> on Monday, April 17, 2017. Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:00:42 Z http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-privity-contract-must-exist-breach-warranty-suitability-claim/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC1089.pdf" target="_blank">Forest City Stapleton, Inc. v. Rogers</a></em> on Monday, April 17, 2017.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Implied Warranty of Suitability—Privity of Contract—Implied Warranties. </em></p> <p>The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether privity of contract is necessary for a home buyer to assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of suitability against a developer. The court concluded that because breach of the implied warranty of suitability is a contract claim, privity of contract is required in such a case. Here, the home buyer was not in privity of contract with the developer and thus cannot pursue a claim against the developer for breach of the implied warranty of suitability. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="http://www.cobar.org/-em-The-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank">The Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/JDL34uxewM8" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-privity-contract-must-exist-breach-warranty-suitability-claim/feed/ 0 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/04/colorado-supreme-court-privity-contract-must-exist-breach-warranty-suitability-claim/ 2017-04-19 14:00 +00:00 2017-04-19 08:00 -06:00