March 17, 2018

Colorado Supreme Court: Wage Claim Act Claims Limited to Two or Three Years Prior to Termination

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc. on Monday, March 5, 2018.

C.A.R. 21.1— Certified Questions of State Law—Colorado Wage Claim Act—Statute of Limitations—Statutory Construction.

The Colorado Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21.1 to answer a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado regarding how far back in time a terminated employee’s unpaid wage claims can reach under the Colorado Wage Claim Act, C.R.S. §§ 8-4-101 to -123. The court held that, under the plain language of C.R.S. § 8-4-109, a terminated employee may seek any wages or compensation that were unpaid at the time of termination; however, the right to seek such wages or compensation is subject to the statute of limitations found in C.R.S. § 8-4-122. That statute of limitations begins to run when the wages or compensation first become due and payable and thus limits a terminated employee to claims for the two years (three for willful violations) immediately preceding termination.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: City Ordinance Effectively Barring Sex Offender Residence Does Not Conflict with State Law

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ryals v. City of Englewood on Monday, January 25, 2016.

Home Rule—Local Government Law—Land Use—Sex Offenders—Conflict in Matter of Mixed State and Local Concern—Preemption.

Having accepted jurisdiction over this certified question of law from the Tenth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that state law does not preempt Englewood’s Ordinance 34. The ordinance implicates a matter of mixed state and local concern by effectively barring sex offenders from residing in Englewood, but it does not conflict with Colorado’s statutory regime for regulating sex offenders as required for state preemption. Nothing in the state regulatory regime prevents home-rule cities from barring sex offenders from residing in their communities, nor is there anything that suggests sex offenders are permitted to live wherever they wish. Furthermore, a state statutory provision specifically authorizes local law enforcement to decline an offender’s application for residency if it violates local law. As such, Ordinance 34 does not conflict with state law and thus is not preempted. This Court therefore answered the certified question in the negative and returned this case to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Excusing Noncompliance with Date Certain Coverage Period Would Fundamentally Alter Terms of Insurance Contract

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. on Tuesday, February 17, 2015.

Claims-Made Insurance Policies—Notice Requirements in Insurance Policies—Notice-Prejudice Rule.

In this opinion, the Supreme Court answered a question of state law certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The question, as reframed by the Court, was whether Colorado’s notice-prejudice rule applies to a date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. The Court concluded that excusing noncompliance with such a requirement would alter a fundamental term of the insurance contract and would not serve the public policy interests that originally supported the adoption of the notice-prejudice rule. Accordingly, it answered the question in the negative and returned the case to the Tenth Circuit for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Certification of Question of Oklahoma State Law

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published the following Certification of Question of State Law in Walker v. Technologies on Thursday, August 15, 2013.

Under Tenth Circuit Rule 27.1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit submitted to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma this request that the court exercise its discretion under Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 1602 (1997), to accept the following certified question of Oklahoma law:

Does a written consumer contract for the sale of goods incorporate by reference a separate document entitled “Terms of Sale” available on the seller’s website, when the contract states that it is “subject to” the seller’s “‘Terms of Sale’” but does not specifically reference the website?

Colorado Supreme Court: Certified Question from U.S. Court of Federal Claims Answered by Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Asmussen v. United States on Monday, July 1, 2013.

Real Property—Deeds—Construction and Operation—Railroad Easement Right-of-Way.

The Supreme Court considered a certified question from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims asking whether Colorado law presumes that abutting landowners own the underlying fee to the centerline of an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Court determined that the centerline presumption is a common law rule of conveyance that presumes that a grantor who conveyed land abutting a right-of-way intended to convey land to the center of the right-of-way—to the extent that the grantor owned the property underlying the right-of-way and absent a contrary intent on the face of the conveyance. Therefore, although the Court held that the centerline presumption applies to railroad rights-of-way, it also held that, to claim presumptive ownership to the centerline of a railroad right-of-way, an adjacent landowner must produce evidence that his or her title derives from the owner of the land underlying the right-of-way. Accordingly, the Court answered the certified question in the negative.

Summary and full case available here.