August 25, 2019

Archives for May 25, 2016

Carl S. McGuire, III, Appointed to 13th Judicial District Court

McGuire (Formatted)On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Governor Hickenlooper appointed Carl S. McGuire, III, to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court. McGuire will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Douglas R. Vannoy, effective July 1, 2016.

McGuire is currently a magistrate judge in the Thirteenth Judicial District, where he mostly hears domestic relations cases. He is also a judge on the Washington County Court bench. He was appointed to the Washington County Court in November 2004, where he presides over a docket of traffic misdemeanor, traffic infraction, criminal misdemeanor, and civil cases. Prior to his appointments to the bench, McGuire was a member of the U.S. Navy JAG Corps. He also has been a municipal court judge, an attorney in private practice for the towns of Wiggins, Hillrose, Akron, Iliff, Log Lane Village, and Fleming, and worked at Brandenburg & McGuire, P.C. and the Law Office of Carl S. McGuire III. He received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University and his law degree from University of Wyoming College of Law.

For more information about the appointment, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Colorado Governmental Immunity Act Does Not Apply to Prospective Injury

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Open Door Ministries v. Lipschuetz on Monday, May 23, 2016.

Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Injury—Nature of Action.

The Supreme Court held that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), CRS §§ 24-10-101 to -120, does not bar claims for prospective relief from a future injury. Open Door Ministries (Open Door) had not suffered an injury by the time it filed its cross-claims against the City and County of Denver. Therefore, Open Door’s cross-claims—which sought prospective relief to prevent a future injury—were not subject to the CGIA. Open Door was not required to comply with the CGIA’s notice provision, and the trial court had jurisdiction over the cross-claims.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Election Statutes Contain Procedure for Challenging Unqualified Elected Official

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Carson v. Reiner on Monday, May 23, 2016.

Election Law—School District Director Elections—Candidate Unqualified but Certified to Ballot.

Carson and two other electors of Mesa County Valley School District 51 made application to the Supreme Court, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113(3), for review of the district court’s order denying their requested relief concerning a school board election. A week before the scheduled election, Carson filed a verified petition, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-1-113(1), naming as respondents the county clerk and recorder and the school board’s designated election official, and seeking a declaration that one of the candidates for the school board was unqualified and had been wrongfully certified to the ballot. In addition, the petition sought an order forbidding the clerk and recorder from counting votes for that candidate. The district court denied the requested relief on the grounds that C.R.S. § 1-1-113(1) did not authorize it to adjudicate the eligibility of a candidate at that stage of the election process. The Court held that C.R.S. § 1-1-113(1) does not permit a challenge to an election official’s certification of a candidate to the ballot, solely on the basis of the certified candidate’s qualification, once the period permitted by C.R.S. § 1-4-501(3) for challenging the qualification of the candidate directly has expired. Therefore, the ruling of the district court was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Child May Be Adjudicated Dependent and Neglected Under Injurious Environment Provisions

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of J.G. on Monday, May 23, 2016.

Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Due Process—Parental Rights.

After a jury found that the environment of M.L.’s four children was injurious to their welfare, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent or neglected pursuant to CRS § 19-3-102(1)(c). Relying on Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that Troxel’s due process requirements do not necessitate that the State prove that both parents lack the availability, ability, or willingness to provide reasonable parental care before a child may be adjudicated dependent or neglected under the injurious environment provision. It further held that neither the plain language of the dependency or neglect statute nor Troxel requires the State to prove parental fault when adjudicating a child dependent or neglected under the injurious environment provision. Hence, the Court concluded that the trial court’s jury instructions were consistent with the plain language of the statute and the trial court did not err when it allowed the jury to find that the children’s environment was injurious to their welfare without first requiring the jury to make findings of parental fault. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to address M.L.’s remaining issues on appeal.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Ample Evidence Supported District Court’s Order Terminating Parental Rights

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in E.S.V. v. People in Interest of C.E.M. on Monday, May 23, 2016.

Termination of Parental Rights.

In this case involving a termination of parental rights, a mother’s treatment plan  included as one of its objectives that the mother would “demonstrate appropriate  protective capacities to ensure her children’s safety.” To achieve this objective, the mother was required to report to her caseworker and the guardian ad litem any contact that she had with the children’s abusive father. The district court found that the mother did not report numerous contacts with the father and was unable or unwilling to internalize the safety concerns at which her treatment plan was directed, despite the efforts of many professionals and treatment providers to assist her. The court thus found that the mother’s treatment plan was unsuccessful and the court terminated the mother’s parental rights as to the children. A division of the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the division’s judgment, concluding that the evidence amply supported the district court’s  findings and conclusions.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/24/2016