June 17, 2019

Archives for October 25, 2011

State Judicial Issues Numerous Revised Water Court Forms

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has issued many revised forms for use in the state’s water courts. Virtually every water law form listed by State Judicial has been amended. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

All forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats; many are also available as Word templates. Download the new forms from State Judicial’s individual forms pages, or below.

Water

  • JDF 290 – “Certificate of Notice” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 296W – “Application for Water Rights (Surface)” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 297W – “Application for Water Storage Right” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 298W – “Application for Underground Water Right” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 299W – “Application for Change of Water Right” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 300W – “Application: For Finding of Diligence or To Make Absolute” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 301W – “Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 302W – “Pleading: In Protest/In Support to Referee’s Ruling” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 303W – “Statement of Opposition” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 304W – “Protest to Revised Abandonment List” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 307 – “Notice of Change in Ownership of Conditional Water Right and/or Change of Address” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 312 – Form 2 – Declaration of Expert Regarding Report, Disclosure, and Opinion” (revised 10/11)
  • JDF 319 – “Form 1 – Sample Modified Case Management Order” (revised 10/11)

Tenth Circuit: Employment Retaliation Claim Affirmed; Punitive Damages Excessive and Violate Federal Due Process Rights

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Jones v. UPS, Inc. on Monday, October 24, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision. Petitioner UPS appeals following a jury verdict awarding Respondent over $2.5 million in actual and punitive damages based on UPS’s retaliatory discharge of Respondent in violation of Kansas common law. Respondent alleged, and the jury found, that UPS terminated Jones in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. On appeal, UPS alleges: 1) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Respondent’s retaliation claim, 2) the district court erred in giving two improper jury instructions, 3) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Respondent’s claim for punitive damages, 4) the district court erred in allowing the jury to decide the amount of punitive damages, and 5) the jury’s award of $2 million in punitive damages violated its federal due process rights.

The Court found that the evidence presented supports a reasonable inference supporting the retaliation claim. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that UPS is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation claim. The Court also concluded that the jury instructions in question were not improper even if poorly drafted, and that UPS is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Respondent’s claim for punitive damages. Ultimately, the Court also concluded that the district court did not err in instructing the jury to determine the proper amount of punitive damages, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and its incorporation of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in federal cases.

The Court, however, disagreed with the district court regarding the amount of punitive damages awarded. The jury’s $2 million punitive damage award was found to be excessive and violates UPS’s federal due process rights. The Court therefore reversed and remanded “on this limited issue to permit [Respondent] to choose between a new trial solely to determine punitive damages or acceptance of a remittitur to be determined by the district court.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/24/11

On Monday, October 24, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Sedillo, Sr. v. Hatch

United States v. Garcia

Thompson v. Milyard

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.