April 25, 2019

Archives for May 14, 2010

Update: Eighth Judicial District’s Dispute Resolution Office Changes Mediation Cancellation Policy

Effective May 12, the state Office of Dispute Resolution for the Eighth Judicial District (Larimer County) changed its mediation cancellation policy to match that of the rest of Colorado.

The statewide policy for cancelling participation in mediation proceedings without penalty is seven days for both civil and domestic cases. Prior to May 12, Larimer County, however, operated under a three-day cancellation policy for domestic relations cases and a seven-day policy for civil cases. The policy conflicted with statewide practices, leading to confusion.

The penalty for failing to cancel a domestic mediation within the seven-day period is $120. The penalty for civil cases is $150.

Case Law: Tenth Circuit Opinions, 5/13/10

The Tenth Circuit on Thursday issued no published opinions and six unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

United States v. DeJear

United States v. Clark

United States v. Potts

United States v. Lara-Jimenez

Eagle Air Med Corporation v. Martin

Beylik v. Estep

Case Law: Tenth Circuit Opinions, 5/12/10

The Tenth Circuit issued three published opinions and three unpublished opinions Wednesday, described below.

Published

In Fruitt v. Astrue, the Court determined that local rule W.D. Okla. L.R. 54.1 for the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, does not establish a time limit for an Equal Access to Justice Act cost request.

In Phillips v. Workman, the Court reversed Phillips’ death sentence and conviction for first-degree malice aforethought as the trial court’s  denial of his request that the jury be instructed on the non-capital lesser-included offense of second-degree depraved mind murder was contrary to Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980).

In WildEarth Guardians v. National Park Service, the Court found the District Court erred when it denied Safari Club’s motion to intervene in a challenge of the National Park Service’s proposal to reduce the elk population in Rocky Mountain National Park, determining it “has a substantial interest in the district court proceedings and that its interest might be impaired as a result of the litigation.”

Unpublished

Orellana-Morales v. Holder, Jr.

Wu v. Holder, Jr.

Vianzon v. City of Aurora