September 24, 2017

Archives for September 28, 2016

Comment Period Open for Proposed Changes to District of Colorado Local Rules

On Monday, September 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado proposed changes to its local rules. The proposed changes will take effect December 1, 2016.

The district court invites public comment on the proposed changes; comments may be submitted via email to LocalRule_Comments@cod.uscourts.gov or via U.S. Mail to Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Attn: Edward Butler, Legal Officer, Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Room A-105, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294. Comments should specify to which local rule they relate. All comments must be received by October 26, 2016, to be considered.

The comments include a new Section III, “Local Patent Rules,” which comprehensively addresses patent filings in the district court. There are many other changes to the existing rules, including updates to rules about written discovery requests, changes to reflect filings by unrepresented prisoners, disposition of conventionally submitted materials after the time for filing appeals has passed, and more. A redline of the changes is available here.

For more information regarding the updates to the District of Colorado Local Rules, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Test Enunciated to Determine Personal Jurisdiction for Non-resident Company Based on In-state Contacts

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Griffith v. SSC Pueblo Belmont Operating Co. on Monday, September 26, 2016.

Constitutional Law—Personal Jurisdiction—Corporations and Business Organizations—Related or Affiliated Entities.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that, to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent company based on the in-state contacts of its resident subsidiary, a trial court shall perform the following analysis: First, the trial court shall determine whether it may pierce the corporate veil and impute the resident subsidiary’s contacts to the nonresident parent company. If so, the court shall analyze all of the nonresident company’s contacts with Colorado, including the resident subsidiary’s contacts, to determine whether exercising either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the company comports with due process. Conversely, if the trial court concludes that it may not pierce the corporate veil, it shall treat each entity separately and analyze only the contacts that each parent company has with the state when performing the personal jurisdiction analysis. Here, because the trial court did not perform this two-step analysis when it determined that petitioners were subject to personal jurisdiction in Colorado, the court made its rule to show cause absolute.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Newly Announced Griffith Test Applied to Determine Personal Jurisdiction

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Meeks v. SSC Colorado Springs Colonial Columns Operating Co. on Monday, September 26, 2017.

Constitutional Law—Personal Jurisdiction—Corporations and Business Organizations—Related or Affiliated Entities.

The Supreme Court holds that the trial court must apply the test announced in Griffith v. SSC Pueblo Belmont Operating Co., 2016 CO 60, __ P.3d __, to determine whether nonresident parent companies may be haled into court in Colorado based on the actions of their resident subsidiaries. It also held that, although an evidentiary hearing is not always required for a ruling on a CRCP 12(b)(2) motion, this case requires a hearing to fully address this case’s complex record and to apply the fact-intensive Griffith test.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Condemnation Decision Must Consider Each Landowner’s Taken Land and Damages

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Department of Transportation v. Amerco Real Estate Co. on Monday, September 26, 2016.

Administrative Law and Procedure—Delegation of Authority—Condemnation Proceedings.

Amerco Real Estate Co. (Amerco) and U-Haul petitioned for relief pursuant to CAR 21 from an order of the district court denying their request to dismiss the Colorado transportation department’s Petition in Condemnation and instead granting the department’s motion for immediate possession of the subject property, which is owned by Amerco and occupied by U-Haul. The district court rejected U-Haul’s assertion that the transportation commission’s authorization for the department to condemn property for highway purposes, in the absence of any resolution by the commission approving the acquisition of the particular property to be taken, at a public meeting, amounted to an unlawful delegation of quasi-legislative power. The Supreme Court issued its rule to show cause and here made the rule absolute, remanding to the district court with orders to dismiss the department’s Petition in Condemnation. The Court held that because the commission’s enabling legislation contemplates that it alone must decide whether the public interest or convenience will be served by a proposed alteration of a state highway, and that decision must be made in consideration of, among other things, the portions of land of each landowner to be taken for that purpose and an estimate of the damages and benefits accruing to each landowner whose land may be affected thereby, the commission’s general authorization, to the extent it purports to delegate to the department the choice of particular properties to be taken for such a highway project and the manner of their taking, constituted an unlawful delegation of its statutorily imposed obligation.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 9/27/2016

On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

Savage v. Fallin

Allen v. Colvin

Horng v. Lynch

Randall v. Allbaugh

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.