August 21, 2019

Archives for January 16, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Contract Provisions Ambiguous, So Pertinent Provisions Properly Submitted to Jury

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in School District No. 1 v. Denver Classroom Teachers Association on Monday, January 14, 2019.

Labor and Employment—Collective Bargaining—Contract Interpretation.

A dispute arose between a school district and a teachers’ association regarding whether, pursuant to the terms of several collective bargaining agreements, the school district was required to compensate teachers for attending English Learning Acquisition (ELA) training. The trial court found the agreements ambiguous and asked the jury to interpret them. The jury, in turn, returned a verdict for the teachers’ association. The school district appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.

The supreme court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, albeit on slightly different grounds. The court acknowledged that the agreements contain a management rights clause, which grants the school district control over all lawful rights and authority not expressly addressed in the agreements. But because the “In-Service Education” provision in the agreements is fairly susceptible to being interpreted as expressly requiring payment for ELA training, the court cannot conclude that the management rights clause allows the school district to refuse to pay for such training. Therefore, the court agreed with the court of appeals that the pertinent contract provisions are ambiguous and that their interpretation was correctly submitted as a factual issue to the jury.

Summary provided courtesy ofColorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Non-Party to Juvenile Delinquency Case Needed Only to Show It Was Substantially Aggrieved to Appeal District Court’s Order

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of D.Z.B. on Monday, January 14, 2019.

Standing on Appeal.

The supreme court reviewed whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (the Department) lacked standing to challenge a district court’s temporary custody order placing D.Z.B., a juvenile, in one of its residential facilities pending his delinquency adjudication.

The court concluded that the court of appeals erroneously merged the analysis used to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue with the analysis used to determine whether a non-party has standing to appeal to assess whether the Department, a non-party to the district court proceedings, had standing to appeal. As a result, the division required the Department to demonstrate that it (1) suffered an injury in fact to a legally protected interest and (2) was substantially aggrieved by the district court’s order. Because the Department was a non-party to the lower court proceedings, the court of appeals should have assessed only whether the Department was substantially aggrieved by the district court’s order. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the case to the court of appeals to apply the correct standard and to consider any outstanding issues.

Summary provided courtesy ofColorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/15/2019

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

Greene v. Inglewood Housing Authority

Lowery v. Bryant

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