Would grant certiorari on the following issues:
Joyce Strodtman v. The People of the State of Colorado, Court of Appeals Case No. 11CA1284 (September 10, 2012)
Whether the court of appeals erred in extending People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961 (Colo. 1985) to authorize the forcible injection of a mentally ill patient as a condition of her release into assisted living in an outpatient setting.
Whether there is a division of authority within the court of appeals pertaining to the standard of review of magistrate rulings when there is no intermediate review by a district court judge.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that forcible injection orders are self executing in a non-emergency situation with only an unsigned bench ruling by a probate magistrate, thus preventing any form of review.
In the Interests of D.M., A.M v. People of the State of Colorado, Court of Appeals Case No. 12CA976 (November 19, 2012)
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in determining that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Mother’s parental rights, and the district court erred in finding that the record supports the trial court’s finding that clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Mother’s rights.
GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company, v. Patricia Davis, Court of Appeals Case Nos. 10CA1625 & 10CA2514 (February 4, 2013)
Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that petitioner’s motion for new trial failed to preserve for appeal the legal error committed by the trial court in allowing the jury to consider as bad faith the reasonableness of petitioner’s legal interpretation of the No-Fault Act.
Whether the trial court erred when it submitted to the jury as a factual matter the reasonableness of petitioner’s legal interpretation of the No-Fault Act, rather than determining the issue as a matter of law.
Whether the court of appeals erred when it reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment after the court applied C.R.S. section 13-21-117.5.
Did the court of appeals err in applying its own notions of public policy to create a new cause of action for willful and wanton breach of a commercial contract involving only economic damages, which voids a limitation of liability mutually agreed to between business entities with equal bargaining power, contrary to Colorado’s public policy of protecting freedom of contract and allocation of risk.
If the quasi-tort of willful and wanton breach of a commercial contract, where only economic damages are sought, is permitted to become the law in Colorado, did the court of appeals err in prohibiting petitioner from allocating fault to the arsonist and the respondent who caused the damages.
Igor Kaminer; Stan Zislis; and I & S, LLC, d/b/a Cannamart, v. City of Littleton and Littleton Licensing Authority, a subdivision of the City of Littleton, Court of Appeals Case No. 12CA0501 (June 10, 2013)
Whether the court of appeals erred by impermissibly abrogating Cannamart’s vested right to operate its business by holding that Littleton could enact a new ordinance limiting the number of medical marijuana center licenses to four, despite the fact that six businesses were lawfully operating before Littleton enacted the ordinance.
Colorado Higher Education Insurance Benefits Alliance Trust et. al. v. Terence Timothy Casey and Joseph Taylor, as representatives of a class consisting of pre-6/30/2003 employees of Mesa State College who had contributed to the Disability Trust. Court of Appeals Case No. 10CA1188 (Sept. 3, 2013)
Whether the majority below erred by looking into the economic loss rule when determining whether tort claims arising from a contractual matrix are barred by the CGIA.
Whether the majority below erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ claims against the Trustees for breach of Fiduciary duty are not barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”).
Whether the majority below erred in holding that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Colleges for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not barred by the CGIA.
Whether the court below erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ claim for inverse condemnation is not subject to the CGIA.
Whether, as a matter of first impression, the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents application of post contract audit of a “cost plus contract” to determine “actual costs.”