<p>SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 EN BANC Bailiff: Abe Alexander/Judy Harvey</p><p>08SA222 (1 HOUR)</p><p>Concerning the Application for Water Rights ) For the Applicant-Appellant: of the City of Aurora, Colorado, acting by and ) Steven O. Sims through its utility enterprise in Adams, ) Adam T. DeVoe Arapahoe, Douglas and Weld Counties. ) John A. Helfrich ) Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP Applicant-Appellant: ) ) For the Opposer-Appellee Rangeview The City of Aurora, acting by and through its ) Metropolitan District: utility enterprise, ) Frederick A. Fendel, III ) Matthew S. Poznanovic v. ) Petrock & Fendel, P.C. ) Opposers-Appellees: ) For the Opposer-Appellee Northern ) Colorado Water Conservancy District: ACJ Partnership, Apex Material Specialists ) Robert V. Trout LLC, Bijou Irrigation Company, Bijou ) Douglas M. Sinor Irrigation District, Brighton Ditch Company, ) Trout, Raley, Montańo, Witwer & Centennial Water and Sanitation District, City ) Freeman, P.C. of Brighton, City of Thornton, City and ) (Entry of Appearance Only) County of Denver, East Cherry Creek Valley ) Water and Sanitation District, Eastern Hills ) LLC, Eastside Auto Investment Co., LLLP, ) Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company, ) Henrylyn Irrigation District, New Brantner ) Extension Ditch Company, Northern ) Colorado Water Conservancy District, Public ) Service Company of Colorado, Rangeview ) Metropolitan District, South Adams County ) Water and Sanitation, State Board of Land ) Commissioners and Stephen Tebo, ) ) and ) ) Appellee Pursuant to C.A.R. 1(e): ) ) Division Engineer for Water Division 1. )</p><p>Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 03CW415 Docketed: June 27, 2008 At Issue: January 7, 2009 Cont’d on Next Page Cont’d from Previous Page ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the water court erred in granting a partial summary judgment when it held that Aurora did not satisfy the can and will requirements of §37-92-305(9)(b) C.R.S. (2007), due to its present inability to access the Disputed Reservoir Sites. </p><p>Whether the water court erred when it rigidly applied the can and will provisions when speculation was not an issue in the application.</p><p>Whether the water court erred when it used the can and will provisions to resolve property ownership issues instead of focusing on whether Aurora had the ability to complete its conditional water right appropriation.</p><p>Whether the water court erred when the dispositive factor in its can and will analysis was Aurora’s present inability to access the Disputed Reservoir Sites.</p><p>Whether the water court erred when it held that the Land Board had made a final decision denying Aurora access to the sites.</p><p>Whether the water court erred when it held that granting the lease was tantamount to a final decision denying access to the sites.</p><p>Whether the water court erred when it considered Rangeview’s lack of consent to use the Disputed Reservoir Sites a final decision denying Aurora access to the sites.</p><p>Whether the water court erred in granting a partial summary judgment when there were genuine issues of material fact at issue. ______Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:00 a.m. EN BANC</p><p>08SA321 (½ HOUR)</p><p>In Re ) For the Plaintiffs: ) Anthony J. Viorst Plaintiffs: ) The Viorst Law Offices, P.C. ) Gennaro DeSantis, individually and as ) For the Defendant John S. Simon, M.D.: representative of the Estate of Virginia ) David D. Karr DeSantis, Pamela Buckner, Terry Elliott and ) Donald E. Lake Cynthia Naeb, ) Pryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C. ) v. ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Board of ) Medical Examiners: Defendants: ) John W. Suthers ) Attorney General John S. Simon, M.D. and Michael Fenoglio, ) Daniel D. Domenico M.D. ) Solicitor General ) Diana E. Black ) Deputy Attorney General ) Ilene Wolf Moore ) First Assistant Attorney General ) Charmaine C. Rose ) Assistant Attorney General</p><p>Original Proceeding, District Court, Adams County, 07CV1140 Docketed: September 19, 2008 At Issue: December 1, 2008</p><p>ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the trial court erred in denying Dr. Simon’s motion for protective order relative to plaintiff’s subpoena and notice of deposition for Dr. Simon to produce all materials related to investigations by the BME. ______Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:30 a.m. EN BANC</p><p>08SC122 (1 HOUR)</p><p>Petitioners: ) For the Petitioners: ) James Peters Herman Jenkins, Bebra Jenkins, Bonnie Bills, ) and Travis Law, Rainey Estes, and Nathanniel ) Qusair Mohamedbhai Estes, ) ) For the Respondents: v. ) Jennifer Osgood ) Dana L. Eismeier Respondents: ) Burns Figa & Will, P.C. ) Panama Canal Railroad Company d/b/a ) Panama Rail Tourism Company, The Estate ) of Stephen O'Donnell, and Kansas City ) Southern Railway Company. )</p><p>Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 06CA846 Docketed: February 11, 2008 At Issue: January 16, 2009</p><p>ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the court of appeals erred when it applied Panama’s one year statute of limitations for tort actions, under Colorado’s Borrowing Statute rather than Colorado’s two (2) year statute of limitations under the Uniform Conflict of Laws - Limitations Act. </p><p>Whether the court of appeals erred when it determined the Borrowing Statute to be the more specific statute then the Uniform Conflict of Laws - Limitations Act. ______SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 EN BANC Bailiff: Katherine Yarger/Clark Smith</p><p>08SA169 (1 HOUR)</p><p>In Re ) For the Plaintiff: ) Mitchell R. Morrissey Plaintiff: ) District Attorney ) Robert J. Whitley The People of the State of Colorado, ) Chief Deputy District Attorney ) v. ) For the Defendant: ) Norman R. Mueller Defendant: ) Rachel A. Bellis ) Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey Eugene Summers. ) & Foreman, P.C.</p><p>Original Proceeding, District Court, City and County of Denver, 07CR2063 Docketed: May 16, 2008 At Issue: December 2, 2008</p><p>ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying Mr. Summers’ motion to dismiss when all charges against Mr. Summers are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ______Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 10:00 a.m. EN BANC</p><p>08SC438 (½ HOUR)</p><p>Petitioner: ) For the Petitioner: ) Nicholas Gradisar Brenda Sperry, ) Gradisar, Trechter, Ripperger, Roth & ) Croshal v. ) ) For the Respondent: Respondent: ) Craig W. Cain ) Jennifer L. White Sherry Field. ) Cain & Hayter, LLP</p><p>Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 07CA282 Docketed: June 6, 2008 At Issue: January 2, 2009</p><p>ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the trial court and the court of appeals, in considering a question of first impression, erred in construing, C.R.S. section 13-21-101(2)(b) by disregarding the plain, clear language of the statute and holding that a personal injury judgment creditor is entitled to interest following an appeal by the judgment debtor from the date of the judgment rather than from the date the action accrued. ______Oral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2009 10:30 a.m. EN BANC</p><p>07SC913 (1 HOUR)</p><p>Petitioners: ) For the Petitioners: ) Alan Epstein Union Pacific Railroad Company, a foreign ) Hall & Evans, L.L.C. corporation and Dannie Dolan, individually, ) and ) Steven E. Napper v. ) Mark C. Hansen ) Alice M. De Stigter Respondents: ) Union Pacific Railroad Company ) and David Martin and Rebecca Martin, parents ) Andrew M. Low and next friends to Maureen Martin, a minor ) Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP and incapacitated person. ) ) For the Respondents: ) Richard A. Westfall ) Allan L. Hale ) Peter J. Krumholz ) Hale Friesen, LLP ) and ) Glen F. Gordon ) Robert A. Schuetze ) Schuetze & Gordon, LLP ) ) For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense ) Lawyers Association: ) Brian J. Waters ) Levy, Morse & Wheeler, P.C.</p><p>Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA1917 Docketed: October 24, 2007 At Issue: January 20, 2009</p><p>ISSUE(S):</p><p>Whether the statutory defenses of comparative negligence and pro rata fault of non-parties are available in an action under the 1990 Premises Liability Act.</p><p>In determining legislative intent for the purpose of construing an ambiguous statute: (a) whether a court should give greater weight to the statute itself or to a later amendment to the statute, which does not apply to the case; and (b) whether a court should give greater weight to the General Assembly's statements in the bill itself or to oral comments by a sponsor of the bill. ______</p>