August 21, 2019

Archives for June 2, 2017

Comment Period Open for Reappointment of Federal Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Romero

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that Federal Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Romero’s 14-year term of office will expire on December 21, 2017. The court is considering whether to reappoint Judge Romero for a new 14-year term of office. Under a new appointment, Judge Romero would continue to exercise jurisdiction as a bankruptcy judge under Titles 11 and 28 of the United States Code.

Comments about Judge Romero’s reappointment are now being accepted by the Tenth Circuit. All comments will be kept confidential. Comments should be mailed to

David Tighe
Circuit Executive
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, CO 80257

and must be received no later than July 21, 2017. For more information about the reappointment, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 6/1/2017

On Thursday, June 1, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and 25 unpublished opinions.

People v. George

People v. Henley

People v. Perez-Rodriguez

Galindo v. Valley View Association

Hutchinson v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

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Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions.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.

Colorado Supreme Court: Mutual Mistake of Material Fact Allows Reopening Workers’ Compensation Claim After Settlement

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in England v. Amerigas Propane on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

Workers’ Compensation—Mutual Mistake of Material Fact—Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether a provision of the mandatory form settlement document promulgated by the Director of the Division of Workers’  Compensation waives an injured employee’s statutory right under C.R.S. § 8-43-204(1) to reopen a settlement based on a mutual mistake of material fact. The court concluded that it does not because provisions of the form document must yield to statutory rights. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Supreme Court May Review Title Board Abstract Using Same Requirements as for Single Subject and Title Disputes

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In the Matter of the Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2017–2018 #4 on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

Single Subject—Fiscal Impact Statement Abstract—Standard of Review.

The supreme court held that Initiative #4 contains a single subject: limiting housing growth in Colorado. The court also considered, for the first time, its authority to review an abstract prepared pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-40-105.5 and the proper standard to apply when reviewing such an abstract. The court held that C.R.S. § 1-40-107 grants the court reviewing authority, and the proper standard of review is the same standard the court applies to the single-subject and clear-title requirements—that is, the court draws all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Title Board’s decision and will  only overturn the Title Board’s decision in a clear case. Under that standard, the court upheld the Title Board’s approval of the abstract at issue in this case. Therefore, the court affirmed the actions of the Title Board.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Court of Appeals Misconstrued Meaning of “Deadly Physical Force”

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Opana on Tuesday, May 30, 2017.

Criminal Trials.

The People petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing Opana’s conviction for second degree murder in the shooting death of one of his housemates. See People v. Opana, No. 10CA1987 (Colo. App. May 29, 2014). The district court instructed the jury as to the use of deadly physical force in defense of one’s person. In consideration of the statutory definition of the term “deadly physical force,” which limits the applicability of the term to “force, the intended, natural, and probable consequence of which is to produce death,” the court of appeals determined that there was adequate evidence produced at trial for the jury to have found that Opana used physical force not rising to the level of “deadly” physical force, and it concluded that in this case the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the use of physical force generally amounted to plain error.

The supreme court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of defendant’s remaining assignments of error because the court of appeals misconstrued the definition of “deadly physical force,” and when that statutory term is properly construed, the evidence at trial did not support an instruction on self-defense predicated on the use of other-than-“deadly” physical force.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/1/2017

On Thursday, June 1, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

Davison v. McCollum

Tucker v. Mercy Tishomingo Hospital Corp.

Finn v. Great Plains Lending LLC

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