Summaries of Published Opinions, 0720 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 7 Pg. 86

PositionVol. 49, 7 [Page 86]

49 Colo.Law. 86

Summaries of Published Opinions

Vol. 49, No. 7 [Page 86]

Colorado Lawyer

July, 2020


May 4, 2020

2020 CO 32. No. 19SC118. People in Interest of G.S.S. Children's Code—Juvenile Court—Delinquency—Bail—Speedy Trial.

CRS § 19-2-509(4)(b) provides that juveniles who are denied bail "must be tried on the charges on which the bail is denied" within 60 days "after the entry of such order or within sixty days after the juvenile's entry of a plea." In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the statute is ambiguous with regard to the type of right it confers and, consequently, to the remedy for its violation. Because it is ambiguous, the Court considered whether the legislature intended it to be a bail statute—and have violations remedied through immediately holding a bail hearing and ordering the juvenile's release—or a speedy trial statute—and have violations remedied through dismissal. The Court concluded that § 19-2-509(4)(b) is a bail statute and thus held that the remedy for its violation is for the court to immediately hold a bail hearing and order the juvenile's release. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed.

2020 CO 33. No. 19SA188. Persichette v. Owners Insurance Co. Colo. RPC 1.9(a)—Former-Client Conflicts— "The Same" Matter— "A Substantially Related Matter."

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to disqualify defendant's longtime former counsel from representing plaintiff.

The Court concluded that defendant's former counsel has a former-client conflict under Colo. RPC 1.9(a) that precludes counsel's representation of plaintiff in this case. As relevant here, die Court ruled that this matter is "substantially related" to matters in which defendant's former counsel previously represented defendant. More specifically, the Court determined that die district court misconstrued "a substantially related matter" to mean "the same" matter and then incorrectly found that the information defendant's former counsel probably possesses as a result of its prior representation of defendant is neither confidential nor advantageous to plaintiff. Because die district court should have disqualified defendant's former counsel from representing plaintiff in order to preserve the integrity and fairness of these proceedings, the Court made the rule to show cause absolute.

2020 CO 34. No. 20SA140. Griswold v. Ferrigno Warren. Election Law.

In this expedited appeal under CRS § 1-1-113(3), the Supreme Court addressed whether die Colorado Secretary of State (the Secretary) properly declined to place Ferrigno Warren on the 2020 Democratic primary ballot for the office of U.S. Senate after she was unable to collect 1,500 signatures in six of seven congressional districts.

The Court concluded that the district court erred when it found that Ferrigno Warren substantially complied with the minimum signature requirements outlined in CRS § 1-4-801(2)(c)(II) because she made a good faith effort to collect signatures during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. While substantial compliance is the standard for technical deficiencies in the election law context...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT