July 22, 2019

Archives for December 22, 2014

Colorado Court of Appeals: In Prescriptive Easement Case, Mere Silence is Not Proof of Permissive Use

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in LR Smith Investments, LLC v. Butler on Thursday, December 18, 2014.

Prescriptive Easement—Quiet Title—Permissive Use.

In this prescriptive easement case, LR Smith Investments, LLC (Smith) claimed prescriptive easements for ingress and egress across two roads owned by Butler. The roads cross a ranch owned by Butler northwest of Craig in Moffat County. The trial court found that Smith and its predecessors continuously, openly, and notoriously used the roads from the mid-1950s until late 2011, when Butler dug ditches preventing access to the roads and thereby precipitated this litigation.

The trial court held that Butler did not meet her burden to overcome the presumption of adversity, and that Smith had satisfied the elements for prescriptive easements to use the roads. The court quieted title to Smith’s nonexclusive right to use the roads for ranching and agricultural purposes, to access the Smith property for hunting and guiding purposes, and for all other similar uses.

On appeal, Butler argued that the court erred in finding that Smith’s use of the road was not permissive, which would defeat Smith’s prescriptive easement claim. The trial court found that Smith’s use of the property was open and notorious for a period in excess of eighteen years. Moreover, the court’s finding that there was no agreement, explicit or implied, between the parties that established that Smith’s use of the roads was permissive was supported by the record. Mere acquiescence or silence is not proof of permissive use. Therefore, Butler did not overcome the presumption of adversity. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: DNA Test Unlikely to Prove Defendant’s Factual Innocence


DNA Evidence—Testing—Due Process—Destruction of Evidence.

This appeal stemmed from defendant’s 1988 conviction for kidnapping and sexual assault. On direct appeal, it was determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for DNA testing because “defendant was seen committing the offense by a police officer and was identified by the victim,” making “the utility of DNA testing . . . speculative at best.” Defendant thereafter filed a Crim.P. 35(c) motion requesting post-conviction testing of DNA. The prosecution conducted DNA testing on the victim’s underwear and did not find any traces of semen and saliva. Defendant then requested his own DNA testing, but the evidence had been destroyed.

On appeal, defendant requested a remedy for the negligent destruction of the underwear. However, defendant was not entitled to testing of the underwear under CRS § 18-1-413 in the first instance because he failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that favorable results of DNA testing would demonstrate his actual innocence. Therefore, the trial court did not err and defendant was not entitled to relief under CRS § 18-1-414(2)(b). The trial court’s determination that the destruction of the evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/19/2014

On Friday, December 19, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and 11 unpublished opinions.

United States v. Rodriguez

United States v. Chavez

United States v. Brownlee

Foster v. Watts

Brown v. Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority

Rackley v. Blevins

United States v. Tucker

United States v. Martin

Wilson v. Colvin

Castillo-Hernandez v. Holder

Scott v. Carlson

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