July 18, 2019

Archives for June 24, 2010

June 30 Program: Bilski v. Kappos

It was more than seven months ago that the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the eagerly-awaited Bilski case, making it the most delayed patent case ever heard by the Supreme Court. As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog quipped on June 24: “The Court has voted unanimously to drive patent lawyers crazy.”

Now it looks like the long wait will end on Monday when the Court announces its final opinions of the session. And when it does, you’ll probably want to know what Bilski v. Kappos means for your clients.

Find out on June 30, 2010, when patent lawyers Wayne Stacy and Scott Alter outline the details of the case and discuss its practical implications for pending and future patents


WHEN: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 2pm – 3pm
WHAT: Live Program and Webcast!
WHERE: CBA-CLE Classroom, 1900 Grant St., Suite 300, Denver, CO
CREDITS: Submitted for 1 General CLE Credit.

Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure Are Amended

The Colorado Supreme Court recently made two amendments to the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure.

The first change, to Rule 307, “Motions and Pleadings,” deleted in its entirety subsection (b) regarding motions. The second change, to Rule 354, “Judgments; Costs,” made a minor change to the Rule’s language.

Redlines for both Rules changes appear in Rule Change 2010(6) (pdf), and were approved by the court, en banc, on April 5, 2010. The changes went into effect immediately.

July 9 Program: Key Players to Talk About Colorado Legislature’s Response to Citizens United

In direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year, the Colorado legislature carried and Governor Ritter signed into law SB 203SB 203 requires corporations and labor unions to register their election campaign donations with an independent agency, showing both the donor and the amount of the donation.

With mid-term elections swinging into full gear, how will this bill be implemented by the Secretary of State’s office? What was its intent? And what impact can we expect it to have on the 2010 elections and beyond?

Get answers to these questions and more at a lunchtime short program on Friday, July 9, when CBA CLE brings together all of the key players — from the legislator who sponsored the bill to the Secretary of State whose office is tasked with implementing it, along with Colorado’s go-to experts on election and campaign finance laws at Citizens United and SB 203: What’s in Store for Campaign Financing in Colorado’s Mid-Term Elections. The panel features:

  • Secretary Bernie Buescher was sworn in as Secretary of State on January 14, 2009. His office is responsible for implementing SB 203. Prior to his current position, he served two terms in the Colorado House of Representatives. At the legislature, he was appointed to the Joint Budget Committee, where he worked on behalf of Colorado to find innovative, bipartisan solutions to the difficult issues facing the state. He served as chair of the Budget Committee in 2006 and 2008, and as chair of the Appropriations Committee in 2007 and 2008.
  • Senator Morgan Carroll represents Colorado Senate District 29 and was a sponsor of SB 203. She serves as chair of Senate Judiciary and is a member of Senate Health and Human Services Committee, the Legislative Audit Committee, and the Legal Services Committee. She was appointed as a commissioner to the National Commission on Uniform Laws, and was recently appointed chair of the Interim Committee on Pinnacol Assurance. Prior to joining the Senate, she served in the Colorado House from 2005 to 2008, and acted as Majority Caucus Chair and vice-chair of the Judiciary Committee, and served on the Business Affairs and Labor committees.
  • Scott Gessler focuses his legal practice on concentrates on election law, constitutional law, public policy litigation, campaign finance, non-profit tax law, regulatory advocacy, and commercial litigation. He was appointed to and served on the Colorado Election Reform Commission. He is currently running against incumbent Secretary Buescher to serve as Colorado’s Secretary of State.
  • Martha Tierney specializes in specializes in election law, civil rights law, family law, and commercial litigation, including contractual, construction, and media disputes. She is a member of the Common Cause National Governing Board and a member of the Colorado Common Cause Board of Directors.
  • Richard A. Westfall is a partner at Hale Westfall in Denver. He is a member of the Colorado Lawyers Committee’s Elections Task Force, treasurer of the Colorado Republican Party, and member of the Secretary of State’s Campaign, Finance and Lobbyists Advisory Panel. He is also a contributor to the Rocky Mountain Appellate Blog.

Register today for this timely and important program. The presentation will also be available as a live webcast, an mp3 download, and video on demand for those unable to attend in person, and has been submitted for two general CLE credits.

Click here for Legal Connection’s previous coverage of SB 10-203.

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 6/23/10

The Tenth Circuit on Wednesday issued four published opinions and seven unpublished opinions.


In Trout v. Drive Financial Services, L.P., the Court affirmed the bankruptcy court and appellate panel decision that Petitioner trustee was not entitled to a money judgment. Petitioner had successfully avoided a preferential vehicle lien, returning the estate to its pre-transfer status as including a depreciating asset and an unsecured obligation to lender. A further money judgment would be inappropriate.

In Narotzky v. Natrona County Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees, the Court affirmed the district court’s granting summary judgment against Petitioners’ due process and Fourth Amendment claims. Insufficient facts were presented to support petitioners’ constructive discharge claim under procedural due process; while Petitioners’ may have had a property interest in existing staff privileges, Petitioners had alternatives to resigning; constructive discharge involves more than a “mutually intolerable working environment.” As to Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment claim, the search of their lockers was not improper; the search was conducted with probable cause and was reasonable in its inception and scope, outweighing Petitioners’ expectation of privacy.

In Thomas v. Parker, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions regarding inmate Petitioner’s confinement by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. “Both this court and the district court previously rejected [Petitioner’s] arguments about the ODOC grievance process and put him on notice that he should not rely on his own contrary interpretations of the process to claim exhaustion.” Petitioner’s motions contained only frivolous arguments and were rejected.

In United States v. Hasan, vacated in part and affirmed in part the district court’s decision regarding the issue of perjury by the Petitioner. While the Court found that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner committed perjury, the district court did not apply the appropriate legal standard regarding Petitioner’s rights before the grand jury. The Court remanded the issue back to the district court to determine if Petitioner’s rights were violated under the Court Interpreter’s Act by failing to provide him with an interpreter on his appearances; a determination must be made as to whether Petitioner “speaks . . . primarily a language other than English.”


Miller v. Kansas Highway Patrol

Cedrins v. USCIS

Painter v. City of Albuquerque

Jones v. Jones

Tubbs v. Harrison

Cedrins v. Central New Mexico Community College

United States v. Uman

Resource: Crafting a Workplace Violence Policy

CBA-CLE’s Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Employment Law contains an interesting (and, as an unfortunate practical matter, necessary) chapter on workplace violence, written by Mark Cohen of the Cohen Law Group in Boulder. Mark sits on the board of directors for DART, Inc., a Boulder nonprofit that offers training to organizations in personal safety and violence prevention.

We think this checklist, extracted from the 2010 supplement‘s chapter on workplace violence, is a helpful tool in advising clients in creating a policy on workplace violence — or in crafting one for your firm.

Workplace Violence Checklist

Tenth Circuit: Opinions, 6/22/10

The Tenth Circuit on Tuesday issued one published opinion and nine unpublished opinions.


In Medlock v. UPS, Inc., the Court affirmed the district court’s granting summary judgment for Respondent UPS. Petitioner, aged fifty-six, failed to support his assertions that the termination of his employment for an avoidable runaway accident violated the ADEA, and that the justifications for his firing and denial of reinstatement were pretextual. Summary judgement was appropriate as the record was devoid of evidence to elicit an inference of discrimination “either directly or through undermining the legitimate and facially neutral reasons given for his termination and non-reinstatement.”


United States v. Vazquez-Martinez

Martin v. Franklin

United States v. Wiley

Salas-Acuna v. Holder, Jr.

United States v. Solarin, Jr.

Gonzales v. Tapia

United States v. Williams

United States v. Howell

Harmon v. Keith