Supreme Court, State of Colorado s1

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 EN BANC Bailiff: Matt Spengler

07SC223 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Alan S. Thompson ALLAN J. ROBBINS, ) Lohf Shaiman Jacobs Hyman ) & Feiger, P.C. v. ) ) For the Respondent: Respondent: ) Martin M. Berliner ) Steven W. McDonald A. B. GOLDBERG. ) Berliner McDonald P.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1884 Docketed: March 27, 2007 At Issue: March 24, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether C.R.C.P. 54(h) deprives judgment creditors of their fundamental property rights without due process of law and subjects them to an arbitrary power beyond their control, in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 2, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, because it permits judgments to lapse without any hearing or opportunity to affect revival, and only as a result of the trial court’s refusal to consider and rule timely upon, a petition for revival.

Whether C.R.C.P. 54(h) deprives judgment creditors of full access to judicial process as required by article 2, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution (the open courts provision) and Allison v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 884 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1994), when it allows judgments to lapse solely as a result of trial court inaction.

Whether Mark v. Mark, 697 P.2d 799 (Colo. App. 1984), improperly infringes the legislature’s exclusive power to limit jurisdiction because it declares, without authority, that judgments which expire, even while a revival petition is pending, divest the court of jurisdiction. ______

1 Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

07SC263 (½ HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Mary A. Wells THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER ) L. Michael Brooks, Jr. COMPANY, ) Sarah Smyth O’Brien ) Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC v. ) and ) Roger P. Thomasch Respondent: ) Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP ) and GARY S. HOLMES. ) David L. Lenyo ) Chad J. Schmit ) Garfield & Hecht, PC ) ) For the Respondent: ) Stephen G. Masciocchi ) David L. Black ) William W. Maywhort ) Holland & Hart LLP ) ) For Amicus Curiae Homeowners ) Against Deficient Dwellings (HADD): ) Ronald M. Sandgrund ) Leslie A. Tuft ) Jennifer A. Seidman ) Sullan², Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak PC ) ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial ) Lawyers Association: ) Jesse Howard Witt ) Benson & Associates PC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA2177 Docketed: April 6, 2007 At Issue: February 4, 2008

ISSUE:

Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a plaintiff in a property-damage product-liability case to recover prejudgment interest on replacement costs from the date of the purchase of the product, which was nearly a decade before the replacement costs were incurred, more than doubling his recovery. ______

2 Oral Argument: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

07SC159 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Douglas K. Wilson RENE DELAROSA-RAMIREZ, ) Colorado State Public Defender ) Cory D. Riddle v. ) Deputy State Public Defender ) Lindsey Webb Respondent: ) Deputy State Public Defender ) THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) For the Respondent: COLORADO. ) John W. Suthers ) Colorado State Attorney General ) Roger G. Billotte ) Assistant Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0273 Docketed: March 5, 2007 At Issue: February 19, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by failing to consider petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of subsection (d) of the criminal impersonation statute, C.R.S. section 18-5- 113(1), on grounds that the statute is both facially void for vagueness and unconstitutionally vague as applied to petitioner.

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the meaning of the word “might” in the criminal impersonation statute did not require reversal of petitioner’s conviction.

Whether the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the district court did not err in permitting irrelevant and prejudicial testimony to be introduced to the jury through a prosecution witness.

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the prosecution introduced sufficient evidence to prove the elements of criminal impersonation beyond a reasonable doubt. ______

3 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 EN BANC Bailiff: Daniela Ronchetti

07SC445 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) J. Andrew Nathan CITY OF COMMERCE CITY, a Colorado ) Heidi J. Hugdahl municipal corporation, ) Allyson C. Hodges ) Marni Nathan Kloster v. ) Nathan, Bremer, Dumm & Myers, P.C. ) and Respondent: ) Thomas E. Merrigan ) Berg, Hill, Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP ENCLAVE WEST INC., a Colorado ) nonprofit corporation. ) For the Respondent: ) Robert J. Bruce ) Delphine L. Farr ) Lawlis & Bruce, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA2686 Docketed: May 24, 2007 At Issue: February 7, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in finding an abuse of discretion by sua sponte limiting Commerce City Council’s legal authority to hear evidence “relevant to the denial of a license application,” as authorized by City Ordinance §9-456(d)(1), to only those “matters relevant to the reason for denial” initially given by the Inspector.

Whether the court of appeals erred when it ordered Commerce City to immediately grant the business license because, in doing so, it substituted its discretion for that of the local legislative body. ______

4 Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

06SC521 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Douglas K. Wilson JAMES KINNEY, ) Colorado State Public Defender ) Andrea A. Manning v. ) Deputy State Public Defender ) Respondent: ) For the Respondent: ) John W. Suthers THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Colorado State Attorney General COLORADO. ) Katherine A. Hansen ) Assistant Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0781 Docketed: August 14, 2006 At Issue: April 9, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether, when evidence of a prior bad act is admitted under CRE 404(b), the jury should be informed that the defendant was acquitted of the alleged prior act.

Whether petitioner’s confrontation rights were violated when the district court precluded him from questioning a prosecution witness about a pending misdemeanor case. ______

5 Oral Argument: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:30 p.m. Bailiff: Amanda Hassid EN BANC

07SC732 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Douglas K. Wilson LORENZO SAYLES, ) Colorado State Public Defender ) Elizabeth Griffin v. ) Deputy State Public Defender ) Respondent: ) For the Respondent: ) John W. Suthers THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Colorado State Attorney General COLORADO. ) Matthew S. Holman ) Assistant Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0780 Docketed: August 23, 2007 At Issue: March 28, 2008

ISSUE:

Whether the court erred in refusing to convene a new jury panel or to grant a new trial because of Arapahoe County’s systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the venire. ______

6 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 8:45 a.m. Oral Argument: Thursday, May, 1, 2008 EN BANC Bailiff: Sarah Mercer

Courts in the Community Delta Performing Arts Center Delta, Colorado

07SC166 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners: ) For the Petitioner Turene Lombard: ) James M. Croshal TURENE LOMBARD and PUEBLO ) and SCHOOL DISTRICT #60, ) Mickey W. Smith ) v. ) For the Petitioner Pueblo School ) District #60: Respondents: ) Jeffrey C. Fleischner ) COLORADO OUTDOOR EDUCATION ) For the Respondents: CENTER, INC., a Colorado non-profit ) Diane Vaksdal Smith corporation, and SANBORN WESTERN ) Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh CAMPS, INC., a Colorado non-profit ) & Jardine, P.C. corporation, d/b/a THE NATURE PLACE. ) ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial ) Lawyers Association: ) Ralph Ogden ) (did not file on the merits) ) ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial ) Lawyers Association: ) Mac Hester ) Bachus & Schanker, LLC ) ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense ) Lawyers Association: ) Jeffrey Clay Ruebel ) Maureen A. Sweeney ) Campbell, Latiolais & Ruebel, P.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1781 Docketed: March 8, 2007 At Issue: March 25, 2008

7 Cont’d on next page

07SC166 Cont’d from previous page

ISSUE(S):

Whether the Colorado Premises Liability Act, section 13-21-115, C.R.S., abrogates the common law principle of negligence per se in the premises liability context.

Whether courts may presume that landowners have knowledge of the particular provisions of building codes, or other similar codes, in a premises liability case. ______

8 Oral Argument: Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:15 a.m. EN BANC

07SC614 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Anthony Viorst TREVON D. WASHINGTON, ) The Viorst Law Offices, P.C. ) v. ) For the Respondent: ) John W. Suthers Respondent: ) Colorado State Attorney General ) Matthew S. Holman THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) First Assistant Attorney General COLORADO. )

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1895 Docketed: July 16, 2007 At Issue: March 28, 2008

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court and the court of appeals erred in declining to vacate Petitioner's convictions based upon the State's non-compliance with the "fair cross-section" requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ______