Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
October 21, 2013

2013 CO 60. No. 12SC139. Bristol Bay Productions, LLC v. Lampack.
Issue Preclusion—CRCP 12(b)(5).

The Supreme Court held that the Colorado action brought by Bristol Bay Productions, LLC (Bristol Bay) is barred on issue preclusion grounds, because the identity of the defendants in this case is not relevant to the causation element Bristol Bay must prove to prevail on its fraud and fraud-based claims. The Court emphasized that Bristol Bay’s Colorado action is based on identical allegations concerning substantially identical misrepresentations to those Bristol Bay alleged in its previous California action.

The Court also held that the trial court erred by dismissing Bristol Bay’s Colorado action under CRCP 12(b)(5) without converting defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under CRCP 56. Because CRCP 56 was the appropriate procedure to resolve this case, Bristol Bay is not liable for attorney fees under Colorado’s attorney fee-shifting statute. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

2013 CO 61. No. 13SA113. In re People v. Voth.
Involuntary Intoxication—CRS § 18-1-804—Insanity—CRS § 16-8-101.5.

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that a virus qualifies as a “substance” that can result in intoxication under CRS § 18-1-804. The Court further held that a defendant who is found to be legally insane at the time of the offense, but shortly thereafter regains sanity, may assert insanity as an affirmative defense if he or she meets all of the other relevant requirements.

The Court’s rule to show cause why the trial court’s order should not be vacated was made absolute. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

2013 CO 62. No. 13SA214. In re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Hickenlooper Concerning the Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of Article XXI, § 3 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
Original Jurisdiction—Colo. Const. Art. VI, § 3—Prior Participation Requirement—Colo. Const. Art. XXI, § 3.

The Supreme Court held that the important constitutional issue raised by the Governor’s Interrogatory constitutes a solemn occasion requiring the Court to exercise its original jurisdiction under Article VI, § 3 of the Colorado Constitution. The Court further held that the prior participation requirement in Article XXI, § 3 of the Colorado Constitution conflicts with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the Court answered the Governor’s Interrogatory in the negative.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

Back