March 24, 2019

Archives for June 25, 2014

Hon. James Denvir to Retire from Archuleta County Court

On Monday, June 23, 2014, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the retirement of Hon. James E. Denvir of the Archuleta County Court, effective January 13, 2015.

Judge Denvir was appointed to the Archuleta County Court bench in Pagosa Springs in 1995. He presides over a criminal and civil docket. He also provides arbitration and mediation services for civil disputes through a private practice. Prior to his appointment, Judge Denvir worked for California Rural Legal Assistance; as an administrative law judge in Sacramento, California; and in solo practice in Pagosa Springs. He received his undergraduate degree from Notre Dame in 1969 and his juris doctorate in 1973 from the University of Southern California Law Center.

Applications are being accepted for the vacancy. Eligible applicants must have earned a high school diploma or equivalent and must be qualified electors of Archuleta County. Application forms are available on the State Judicial website and also from Justice Brian Boatright, the ex officio chair of the Sixth Judicial District Nominating Commission. The original signed application must be filed with the ex officio chair no later than 4 p.m. on July 30, 2014. Anyone wishing to nominate another person must do so no later than 4 p.m. on July 23, 2014.

For more information about the vacancy and for contact information for members of the nominating commission, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Threatening Statements Not Protected by Psychologist-Patient Privilege

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Kailey on Monday, June 23, 2014.

Who May Not Testify Without Consent—CRS § 13-90-107(1)(g)—Civil Liability—Mental Health Providers—Duty to Warn—CRS § 13-21-117(2).

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court held that if a mental health treatment provider believes that statements made by a patient during a therapy session threaten imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons, and accordingly trigger that provider’s legal duty to warn under CRS §13-21-117(2), the patient’s threatening statements are not protected by the psychologist–patient privilege provided by CRS § 13-90-107(1)(g). Consequently, the Court also held that the trial court erred when it excluded threatening statements made by a patient to a mental health treatment provider on the ground that the statements were barred by the psychologist–patient privilege. The rule was made absolute and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Professional Review Committee Records Protected from All Forms of Subpoena or Discovery

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts on Monday, June 23, 2014.

CRS § 12-36.5-104(10)(a)—Professional Review Committee—Records Protected From all Subpoena or Discovery—Records Protected from Admissibility in Administrative Proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that CRS § 12-36.5-104(10)(a) protects the records of a professional review committee from all forms of subpoena or discovery. The statute further protects the records from admissibility in civil suits. The Court also held that the term “civil suit” includes administrative proceedings of an adjudicatory nature. Accordingly, the Colorado Medical Board’s (Board) records are protected from subpoena or discovery and are not admissible in the administrative hearing regarding the denial of the doctor’s medical license, and the Board need not furnish the records at issue in this petition.

The Court therefore reversed the district court’s order requiring that the Board comply with the Administrative Law Judge’s discovery order. The case was remanded to the district court with directions.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Ballot Initiative Rejected Because it Proposes More than a Single Subject

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #76: Hayes v. Spalding and Staiert on Monday, June 23, 2014.

Single Subject Violation—Second Subject has an Independent Purpose.

Initiative #76 would repeal existing Colorado Constitution Article XXI in its entirety. Currently, Article XXI sets forth provisions for recalling state and local elected officers. Initiative #76 proposes to comprehensively revamp the recall provisions of Article XXI, for the purpose of altering the manner in which state and local recall elections are triggered and conducted.

Initiative #76 has a second purpose: to establish a new constitutional right to recall non-elected state and local officers. Historically, Colorado law has provided only for the recall of elected officers. The initiative’s second subject has a distinct and separate purpose from its first subject.

The Supreme Court concluded that Initiative #76 proposes more than a single subject, in violation of Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5), because the second subject has a purpose that is not dependent on or necessarily and properly connected to the first. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Title Board’s action. The matter was returned to the Title Board with directions to strike the title and return the initiative to its proponents.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Ballot Initiative Encompasses Only Single Subject and is Therefore Acceptable

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title, and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #129: Milo v. Coulter and Staiert on Monday, June 23, 2014.

Single Subject—Clear Title.

The Supreme Court held that Initiative #129 contains a single subject: the definition of a “fee.” The Court also held that the title clearly expresses the single subject of Initiative #129. The Court thus affirmed the action of the Title Board.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/24/2014

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Kastner v. Intrust Bank

O’Bryant v. State of Oklahoma

Knight v. Colvin

Borwick v. University of Denver, Board of Trustees

United States v. Hankerson

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