Colorado Supreme Court, 1116 COBJ, Vol. 45 No. 11 Pg. 125
September 2016: Summaries of Published Opinions
The summaries of Colorado Supreme Court published opinions are provided by the Court; the CBA cannot guarantee their accuracy or completeness. Both the summaries and full opinions, as well as the lists of petitions for rehearing and certiorari and the granted original proceedings pursuant to the Colorado Appellate Rules, are available on the CBA website, www.cobar.org (click on “For Members” and then “Opinions/Rules/Statutes”), and on the Colorado Judicial Branch website, www.courts.state.co.us (click on “Courts/Supreme Court/Case Announcements”).
September 12, 2016 2016 CO 57. No. 15SA332. Magill v. Ford Motor Co. Constitutional Law-Personal Jurisdiction-General Jurisdiction-Corporations and Business Organizations-Related or Affiliated Entities.
The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause to review the trial court’s conclusion that defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Colorado and that venue was proper in Denver County. The Court concluded that, under Daimler AG. v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), the record does not support a finding that Ford is “essentially at home“ in Colorado. Therefore, Ford is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in Colorado. Because the trial court did not determine whether Ford was subject to specific jurisdiction, the Court did not reach that issue. The Court also held that maintaining a registered agent in the state does not convert a foreign corporation to a resident. Because none of the parties reside in Denver and the accident did not occur there, venue was not appropriate in Denver County.
2016 CO 58. No. 14SC346. Martinez v. Estate of Bleck.
Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-Interlocutory Appeal-Sovereign Immunity-Willful and Wanton Conduct.
Bleck was injured when Officer Jeffrey Martinez’s firearm discharged during an attempt to subdue Bleck. Bleck filed a state law battery claim against Martinez, and Martinez filed a motion to dismiss, claiming immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). The trial court found that Bleck had adequately pleaded willful and wanton conduct by Martinez and thus denied Martinez’s motion Martinez then filed an interlocutory appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Martinez was only entitled to qualified immunity, which is not appealable on an interlocutory basis, not sovereign immunity, which is. The Supreme Court reversed and concluded that whether a public employee’s conduct is willful and wanton under the CGIA implicates sovereign immunity. Thus, the plain language of the CGIA affords Martinez a right to an interlocutory appeal. The Court further...
To continue reading
Request your trial