Tag: Justice Carlos Samour
-
Car rental companies are not ‘insurers,’ Colorado Supreme Court rules
The Colorado Supreme Court decided on Monday that car rental companies offering insurance policies are not also “insurers” under state law, who may be sued for their failure to pay out benefits on claims. By 4-3, the justices further concluded that Hertz Corp. was not a “de facto” insurer simply because it was heavily involved…
-
Colorado justices skeptical of snowboarder’s bid to revive injury lawsuit after signing new waiver
The Colorado Supreme Court seemed to agree on Thursday that a plaintiff is not entitled to continue his snowboarding injury lawsuit because he purchased another pass in the middle of litigation that released all past legal claims. “It says you’re releasing anything which has happened up to now. It seems pretty plain language what it…
-
Colorado Supreme Court considers new requirement for leaving-the-scene convictions
In 2006, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious injury is a “strict liability” offense, meaning a person is guilty solely through their conduct, without the need for prosecutors to prove the defendant’s mental state. Now, 20 years later, one defendant is asking the Supreme Court to…
-
Colorado Supreme Court weighs transgender services case involving Children’s Hospital and federal threats
Some members of the Colorado Supreme Court expressed discomfort on April 14 with having to decide whether to order Children’s Hospital Colorado to resume providing certain services to transgender children, which could trigger a “death sentence” if the federal government imposes consequences. “I’m assuming there’s no middle ground here with the federal administration, in terms…
-
Colorado justices side with news organizations for disclosure of high-level child abuse data
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the state must disclose the number of child abuse reports at individual group living facilities in response to an open records request, as the addresses are already in the public domain. The justices agreed that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the case. But beyond that,…
-
Colorado justices, 4-3, order new murder trial due to wrongfully excluded evidence
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Monday that a trial judge incorrectly faulted a defendant for refusing to cooperate in a mental health examination, even though the state’s hospital was the entity that botched its responsibility to evaluate her during the windows where she was competent. However, by 4-3, the justices concluded that the judge…
-
Colorado justices weigh fairness concerns after defendant prevailed despite ghosting case
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court struggled on Tuesday to balance the need for one defendant to shield itself against a plaintiff’s claim that its employee sexually assaulted her child, and the fact that the employee legally admitted the allegations against him by failing to participate in nearly all of the civil case. A plaintiff…
-
Colorado justices skeptical of challenge to water enterprises’ eminent domain power
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court appeared receptive on Wednesday to the notion that water-related enterprises have the legal authority to exercise the governmental power of eminent domain over private property. An enterprise is a government-owned business that provides fee-based services. In 1993, lawmakers authorized the creation of “water activity enterprises” to provide a secure…
-
Colorado justices concerned about retrying defendant after jury signaled acquittal
Some members of the Colorado Supreme Court appeared uncomfortable on Tuesday with allowing a criminal defendant to stand trial a second time after a Larimer County jury signaled it was deadlocked on some counts but had found him not guilty of the more serious charges. Omar Alexander Mena stood trial last summer for three counts…
-
Colorado justices splinter over approach to sentencing review
Members of the Colorado Supreme Court were divided on Monday about whether vehicular homicide stemming from intoxicated driving is “grave and serious” in every possible scenario, with two justices suggesting the court reconfigure its approach for determining the proportionality of criminal sentences. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment means sentences cannot be…