Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

September 09, 2019

2019 CO 74 No. 18SA215, The Luskin Daughters 1996 Trust v. Young

The Luskin Daughters 1996 Trust (Trust) appealed from the water court’s order dismissing its complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as for damages. The water court concluded that in the absence of an application for the determination of a water right, the Trust’s claim of interference by the Youngs with its unadjudicated appropriative rights to springs that arise on the Youngs’ land could not proceed before the water court. It therefore granted the Youngs’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CRCP 12(b)(1), (2), or (5).

The Supreme Court held that because the water court could not provide the Trust’s requested relief without the Trust’s first having adjudicated its water rights in accordance with CRS § 37-92-302, the water court properly dismissed the Trust’s complaint. It also held that because the Youngs successfully defended the dismissal of this tort action on appeal, they are statutorily entitled to their reasonable appellate attorney fees. The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded to the water court for a determination of the amount of those fees.

Read More..

2019 CO 75 No. 17SC614, Brooks v. People

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether defendant’s prior guilty plea to theft from a person was constitutionally obtained, such that it could be used later to adjudicate him a habitual offender. The Court held that defendant’s prior guilty plea to theft from a person was constitutionally valid because defendant understood the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Because defendant was convicted of a relatively simple offense, had prior, relevant experience with the criminal justice system, and was represented by competent counsel who certified that defendant was advised of all the critical elements of theft from a person, the prior guilty plea can be used to adjudicate defendant a habitual offender. The Court of Appeals’ opinion was vacated and the judgment was affirmed on different grounds.

Read More..

2019 CO 76 No. 17SC284, Alliance for a Safe and Independent Woodmen Hills v. Campaign Integrity Watchdog, LLC

In this case, the Supreme Court considered two questions regarding the meaning of Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, § 9(2)(a). First, the Court construed the term “violation,” as that term is used in § 9(2)(a), to determine whether the “violation” that triggers § 9(2)(a)’s one-year statute of limitations for private campaign finance enforcement actions can extend beyond the dates adjudicated and penalized in the decision being enforced. Second, the Court considered whether the attorney fees provision in § 9(2)(a) is self-executing or whether it must be read together with CRS § 13-17-102(6) to limit attorney fee awards against a pro se party.

With regard to the first question, the Court concluded that the term “violation,” as used in § 9(2)(a), refers to the violation as adjudicated and penalized in the decision being enforced. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in perceiving a possible continuing violation under § 9(2)(a). Therefore, the enforcement action in this case was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

With regard to the second question, the Court concluded that § 9(2)(a)’s language stating that “[t]he prevailing party in a private enforcement action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs” is self-executing and that CRS § 13-17-102(6) cannot be construed to limit or nullify § 9(2)(a)’s unconditional award of attorney fees to the prevailing party. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ contrary determination and concluded that petitioners, as the prevailing parties in this case, are entitled to an award of the reasonable attorney fees that they incurred in the district and appellate courts in this case.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Read More..

September 9, 2019

Read More..