August 20, 2019

Archives for May 24, 2010

Update: Sides Lawyer Up in Response to Medical Marijuana Regulation Bills

The ink hasn’t even hit the parchment, much less dried, on medical marijuana regulatory legislation recently approved by the Colorado General Assembly, but that hasn’t stopped parties on both sides of the issue from lawyering up, according to this morning’s Denver Post:

Last week, a team of attorneys who specialize in medical-marijuana cases met with several dozen potential plaintiffs in preparing a lawsuit to challenge the rules as unconstitutionally restrictive.

At the other end of the spectrum, prosecutors and others who believe the legislature overstepped its authority in liberalizing marijuana regulations were pondering their legal options.

The governor is expected to sign HB 10-1284 and SB 10-109 into law sometime in the coming weeks.

See our previous coverage of Colorado’s evolving medical marijuana law here.

June 2, 2010: Privacy Basics for Business

We see businesses addressing privacy issues on a daily basis. We receive annual privacy notices from our banks and sign privacy notices when we visit our doctor. Changes in privacy controls by online social media sites generate much controversy. But what obligations do businesses generally have for the personal information of individuals that they collect, use, store, and share?

These are the issues that noted Denver attorney Bruce L. Plotkin, chair of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s Intellectual Property and Technology Group, will address next Wednesday, June 2, in a one-hour lunchtime program, To Use and Protect: Privacy Basics for Business.

Federal regulators and state legislators have been busy producing a significant number of new privacy requirements applicable to many businesses. This program will provide an overview of the privacy law landscape for businesses and focus on some of the most critical privacy issues that they face today.

This program will be held in our classroom on June 2, 2010. Live attendees receive lunch with their registration. It is also available via live webcast, MP3 download, and video on-demand. It has been submitted for one general CLE credit.

Colorado Supreme Court: Consolidated Water Augmentation Cases

The Colorado Supreme Court on May 24, 2010, issued its opinion in two consolidated water law cases: In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in Eagle and Summit Counties; and In the Matter of the Application for Water Rights of the City of Aurora, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Eagle Park Reservoir Company, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and Vail Associates, Inc. in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Pitkin, and Summit Counties.

Augmentation Plan—Retained Jurisdiction—CRS § 37-92-304(6)—Burden to Invoke Retained Jurisdiction—Operation of Augmentation Plan—Accounting for Out-of-Priority Diversions, Depletions, and Replacements—Invocation of Retained Jurisdiction to Preclude or Remedy Injury.

The water court dismissed the petitions of the State and Division Engineers and the Colorado Water Conservation Board seeking to invoke the retained jurisdiction provisions of two augmentation plan decrees held by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (Authority). The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the water court’s judgments of dismissal and accompanying questions involving the water court’s construction and implementation of the augmentation plan retained jurisdiction provision, CRS § 37-92-304(6) of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969. The Court reversed the water court’s judgments.

The Court held that the water court erred in dismissing the petitions in both of these cases. The petitions allege sufficient facts that, if proved, meet the petitioners’ burden of showing that injury has occurred or is likely to occur, based on operational experience involving the actual mix of out-of-priority diversions and consumptive depletions covered by the augmentation plans. Reviewing the petitions, the water court should have conducted additional proceedings in both of these cases pursuant to CRS § 37-92-304(6).

The Court disagreed with the Authority’s argument that water court retained jurisdiction under § 304(6) can be invoked to remedy only actual injury to a decreed water right. The Court held that the plain language of CRS § 37-92-304(6) directs the water court’s use of retained jurisdiction “as is necessary or desirable to preclude or remedy any such injury,” and the water court should extend the period of retained jurisdiction for such time as “the nonoccurrence of injury shall not have been conclusively established.” The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary and full case also available here.

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 5/24/10

The Tenth Circuit on Monday issued one published opinion and ten unpublished opinions.


In Fletcher v. Burkhalter, the Court reviewed the appeal of a state actor in a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, whose request for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity was denied by the district court. The Court determined it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s determinations of factual sufficiency, and otherwise upheld the district court’s determinations.


Love v. Chester

United States v. Altamirano-Quintero

United States v. Payne

United States v. Atkins

Odom v. Potter

Fox v. STB

United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez

United States v. Dixon

United States v. Dennis

United States v. Jordan

June 23, 2010: “Medical Marijuana Reform: The Definitive Update on HB 10-1284″ Scheduled for June 23

On May 11, the Colorado Legislature sent HB 10-1284, a controversial bill creating a regulatory framework for the distribution of medical marijuana in Colorado, to Gov. Ritter’s desk for his signature. What are the provisions of the legislation, and will they blunt activity in Colorado’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry?

Find out all this and more on Thursday, June 23, when CBA CLE hosts Colorado State Representative Tom Massey (R-Poncha Springs), HB 10-1284’s main sponsor, and Warren Edson, architect of the constitutional amendment codifying the legalization of medical marijuana in Colorado, in a joint presentation, Medical Marijuana Reform: The Definitive Update on HB 10-1284.

Rep. Massey will present a comprehensive overview of the new medical marijuana law, and explain what it intends to accomplish; its role in protecting the public; and its intended impact on clients, patients, caregivers, law enforcement, and the public. Edson will address how the newly enacted law is anticipated to affect the regulation of the medical marijuana industry and what these changes mean to clients, patients, caregivers, and law enforcement. He will also discuss how the new law impacts medical marijuana dispensaries as we know them today, and will point out the areas overlooked by the new legislation and how they will survive the new law. The program will close with a 30-minute Q&A session.

The presentation will also be available as a a live webcast, an mp3 download, and video on demand for those unable to attend in person, and has been submitted for four general CLE credits. If you’d like to familiarize yourself with the issues, CBA CLE is your statewide source in providing the most timely updates in Colorado cannabis law:

And here are just a few hits from the traditional media:

  • Colorado Med Pot Groups Mobilize – NPR
  • Medical Marijuana: What the New Laws Could Mean for You – Westword
  • Future of Medical Marijuana Is Cloudy – The Coloradoan
  • Poll: 49% of Coloradans Say Marijuana Should Be Legal, Taxed – Denver Business Journal
  • HB 10-1284: Cities Gear Up to Put More Curbs on Medical Pot – State Bill Colorado
  • Colorado Lawmakers Pass Marijuana Regulations – Denver Post