August 24, 2019

Archives for December 27, 2013

Colorado Supreme Court: Defendant Bears Burden of Proving that Search and Seizure Violated Fourth Amendment Rights

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Cunningham on Monday, December 23, 2013.

Criminal Procedure—Crim. P. 41(e)—Suppression Hearing—Defendant’s Burden of Going Forward With Evidence—Searches and Seizure Under Warrant.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in suppressing evidence when it ruled that the prosecution must go forward with evidence showing that the warrant in this case was facially valid and legally executed. Whether a search or seizure is performed pursuant to a warrant or is warrantless, the defendant under Crim.P. 41(e) bears the burden of going forward to show that the search or seizure violated his or her Fourth Amendment rights. The suppression order was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Applies to All Children, Not Just Trespassing Children

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in S.W. v. Towers Boat Club, Inc. on Monday, December 23, 2013.

Attractive Nuisance—CRS § 13-21-115.

The Supreme Court considered whether, under Colorado’s premises liability statute, CRS § 13-21-115, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies to both trespassing children and licensees or invitees. The Court held that the doctrine permits all children, regardless of their classification, to bring a claim for attractive nuisance. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, which had found that the doctrine only protects trespassing children.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Board Members of Water Conservancy District Serving Expired Terms May Continue to Vote

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District in Rio Blanco County: Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District v. Livingston on Monday, December 23, 2013.

Diligence Applications—Holdover Directors—Water Conservancy Act.

The Supreme Court held that the holdover provision in the Water Conservancy Act, CRS § 37-45-114(1)(b), enables a holdover director to continue to serve as a de jure officer and does not impose a temporal limit on his or her authority to act on behalf of a water district. The water court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 12/26/13

On Thursday, December 26, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and 29 unpublished opinions.

Friends of Denver Parks v. City & County of Denver

The summary for this case is forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Tortious Interference with Contract Claims Failed

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Vazirani v. Heitz on Friday, December 20, 2013.

Anil Vazirani is an independent insurance agent, also known as a producer, who contracts with insurance companies to sell life-insurance and annuity products. He owns and manages Vazirani & Associates Financial, LLC and Secured Financial Solutions, LLC. In 2005, Vazirani contracted with Aviva Life and Annuity Company, a provider of life-insurance and annuity products. After approximately four years, Defendants Mark Heitz and Jordan Canfield, executives at Aviva, cancelled the contract.

In October 2009, Vazirani filed suit in federal court. The amended complaint named Heitz and Canfield as defendants, claiming that they (1) tortiously interfered with Vazirani’s contractual relationship with Aviva; (2) tortiously interfered with Vazirani’s business expectancies; (3) entered into a civil conspiracy to tortiously interfere with Vazirani’s contract with Aviva and Vazirani’s business expectancies; and (4) aided and abetted in each other’s tortious acts. The district court granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Vazirani argued on appeal that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he presented enough evidence that a jury should have been permitted to decide the tortious-interference claims. The court applied Arizona law and held that because the Defendants were acting within the scope of their authority, they were the employer and could not interfere with their own contract unless they acted with purely personal reasons without any motivation to serve Aviva. The court held that Vazirani failed to prove any personal motivation and a lack of business motives and affirmed the district court.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/26/13

On Thursday, December 26, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and one unpublished opinion.

Bank of America v. Dakota Homestead

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.