Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

April 27, 2020

2020 CO 28 No. 19SA272, Coke v. People

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s suppression of statements defendant made to the police and evidence obtained from her cell phone. The Court concluded that because defendant was not in custody at the time she made the statements at issue and because there is no evidence of government coercion, the statements were not taken in violation of defendant’s right to avoid self-incrimination and were voluntary. It also concluded that the search warrant permitting the search of defendant’s cell phone was constitutionally overbroad because it authorized a search of virtually the entire contents of defendant’s phone. Therefore, the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the portion of the trial court’s order suppressing defendant’s statements, affirmed the portion suppressing the evidence from her cell phone, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Read More..

2020 CO 29 No. 19SA143 Amica Life Insurance Company v. Wertz

This case required the Supreme Court to answer the following certified question from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals: May the Colorado General Assembly delegate power to an interstate administrative commission to approve insurance policies sold in Colorado under a standard that differs from Colorado statute? Answering the certified question narrowly, the Court concluded that the General Assembly did not have the authority to delegate to the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission the power to issue a standard authorizing the sale of life insurance policies in Colorado containing a two-year suicide exclusion when a Colorado statute prohibits insurers doing business in Colorado from asserting suicide as a defense against payment on a life insurance policy after the first year of that policy.

Read More..

2020 CO 30 No. 19SC651, Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer

This case arose out of a zoning dispute involving the propriety of constructing a gravity-based mountain roller coaster in the Estes Valley. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the local authorities tasked with making and reviewing zoning determinations abused their discretion in interpreting and applying the Estes Valley Development Code when they determined that the proposed mountain coaster could be constructed. Applying the deferential standard of review required for an action brought pursuant to CRCP 106(a)(4), the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion.

The Court was also asked to consider whether the constitutionality of the Estes Valley Development Code could be appropriately raised or considered on appeal to district court in a suit brought exclusively as a CRCP 106 claim. CRCP 106 proceedings are reserved for challenges to the judicial and quasi-judicial actions of government actors rather than the law itself. As such, the Court concluded that the constitutionality of the Estes Valley Development Code could not be appropriately raised or considered in district court in a CRCP 106 action.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment was reversed.

Read More..

2020 CO 31 No. 19SC650 Langer v. Board of County Commissioners

This is a companion case to Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer III, 2020 CO 30, __ P.3d __, decided the same day. Both cases were before the Supreme Court on a transfer from the Court of Appeals pursuant to C.A.R. 50. Here, the Court was asked to decide whether the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) misconstrued applicable law and abused its discretion in finding that defendant’s mountain coaster project was properly classified as a “park and recreation facility” rather than an “outdoor commercial recreation or entertainment establishment.”

The Court concluded that the BOCC correctly construed the applicable code provisions and, applying the deferential standard of review mandated here, that the BOCC did not abuse its discretion in classifying the mountain coaster project as a park and recreation facility.

Accordingly, district court’s judgment was affirmed.

Read More..

April 27, 2020

Read More..