Tag Archives: Original Jurisdiction

Hagan v. Farmers; Ewald v. Farmers; Mayfield v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2015CO6 (Jan. 26, 2015)

“In choosing Boulder, the plaintiffs may well have engaged in ‘forum shopping’ … But Rule 98 (c)(1) does not restrict the plaintiff’s choice of venue when the defendant is a nonresident…” Opinion. Relying on its opinion in Sampson v. District Court, 590 P2d 958 (1979), and approving an exemplar affidavit in Dep’t Highways v District Court, 635 P2d 889 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed three trial court orders transferring venue. It held that Boulder was a proper venue and that Defendant Farmers Insurance did not provide sufficient evidentiary support for its request to change venue. Defendant failed to 1) focus on the convenience of non-moving party witnesses and 2) submitted inadequate affidavits that did not contain in sufficient detail: a) witness identity, b) the nature, materiality and admissibility of testimony, and c) how the change would affect the witnesses.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9646&courtid=2

Leave a comment

Filed under Insurance, Interlocutory Review

In Re: Interrogatory Propounded by Governor John Hickenlooper Concerning the Constitutionality of Certain Provisions of Article XXI, § 3 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, 2013CO62 (Oct. 21, 2013)

“[T]he United States Supreme Court’s precedent (and common sense) make clear that virtually no regulation that compels voters to take a position can pass constitutional muster.” – Opinion. On August 28, 2013, the Court struck down Colorado’s Constitutional provision known as the Prior Participation Requirement (PPR) as violative of the US Constitution. This opinion explains why. The Court exercised its original jurisdiction to answer an interrogatory from the Governor because a citizen’s right to vote is the essence of a democratic society. The Court then determined that the PPR violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it compels speech on the recall question and nullifies a vote on the successor question. The dissenters would not have answered “this hypothetical question” and disagreed that prior participation compels speech once a voter decides to vote.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA214.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9112&courtid=2

1 Comment

Filed under Constitutional