June 20, 2019

Archives for February 23, 2017

Income Eligibility Guidelines Amended in Several Chief Justice Directives

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch released updates to several Chief Justice Directives to reflect changes in the income eligibilitly guidelines. The amended Chief Justice Directives are listed here:

  • CJD 16-02, “Court Appointments Through the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel,” Attachment B amended.
  • CJD 14-01, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Cases,” Attachment B amended.
  • CJD 04-06, “Court Appointments Through the Office of the Child’s Representative,” Attachment A amended.
  • CJD 04-05, “Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court-appointed Counsel, Guardians ad litem, Child and Family Investigators, and Court Visitors paid by the Judicial Department in proceedings under Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 (special respondents in dependency and neglect only), 22, 25.5, and 27, C.R.S.,” Attachment A amended.
  • CJD 04-04, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Criminal Cases and For Contempt of Court,” Attachment B amended.

For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Employer in Workers’ Comp Case

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Youngquist v. Miner on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.

Workers’ Compensation—Personal Jurisdiction—Specific Jurisdiction.

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Colorado has jurisdiction to award benefits for out-of-state work-related injuries and impose a statutory penalty on an employer under C.R.S. § 8-41-204 when the employer is not a citizen of Colorado and has no offices or operations in Colorado but hired a Colorado citizen within the state. The court concluded that under the facts of this case, Colorado lacks personal jurisdiction over the employer and therefore the employer cannot be subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado, C.R.S. §§ 8-40-101 to 8-47-209. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Competency Evaluation Properly Excluded from Speedy Trial Calculation

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nagi v. People on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.

Criminal Trials—Continuances—Speedy Trial.

Defendant sought review of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming his conviction and sentence for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. See People v. Nagi, 2014 COA 12. In addition to rejecting his challenge to the legality of his sentence, the court of appeals rejected defendant’s assertion that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial, as prescribed by C.R.S. § 18-1-405. Defendant had argued that the district court lacked sufficient grounds to justify ordering a competency evaluation, and that the period during which defendant was under observation or examination was therefore not properly excluded from the calculation of the time within which trial was statutorily required. With one member of the panel dissenting, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the evaluation, notwithstanding its reference to defendant’s choice to proceed pro se as at least one of the reasons for questioning his competency, and that the evaluation period was therefore properly excluded and defendant’s statutory speedy trial right was not violated.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 2/23/2017

On Thursday, February 23, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued 10 published opinions and 19 unpublished opinions.

People in Interest of D.Z.B.

People v. Raehal

Francis v. Aspen Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.

Bermel v. BlueRadios, Inc.

Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Campaign Integrity Watchdog, LLC v. Alliance for a Safe and Independent Woodmen Hills

Nibert v. Geico Casualty Co.

City of Aurora v. Arapahoe County Assessor

Munoz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

Sterling Ethanol, LLC v. Colorado Air Quality Control Commission

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.

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

HB 17-1159: Adding Remedies in Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions

On February 6, 2017, Rep. Jon Becker and Sen. John Cooke introduced HB 17-1159, “Concerning Actions Related to Forcible Entry and Detainer.”

The bill adds to the current descriptions of forcible detainer the act of a person preventing an owner from access to or possession of property by locking or changing the lock on the property.

The bill creates a procedure for the plaintiff to seek a temporary, mandatory injunction giving the plaintiff possession of the property if a complaint for forcible entry or detainer is filed. The procedure requires the plaintiff to store any personal property found on the property but allows the plaintiff to recover the costs of the storage.

The bill establishes as new crimes related to forcible entry and detainer the crimes of unlawful occupancy and unlawful reentry.

The bill was introduced into the House and assigned to the Judiciary and Appropriations committees.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 2/22/2017

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

United States v. Mowery

Dawson v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP

United States v. Jones

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