Repository: freelawproject/juriscraper (language: python)

Issue:
Scraper down (coloctapp)
IndexError: list index out of range

Sentry Issue: [COURTLISTENER-7SD](https://freelawproject.sentry.io/issues/5553117677/?referrer=github_integration)

```
IndexError: list index out of range
  File "cl/scrapers/management/commands/cl_scrape_opinions.py", line 390, in handle
    self.parse_and_scrape_site(mod, options)
  File "cl/scrapers/management/commands/cl_scrape_opinions.py", line 353, in parse_and_scrape_site
    site = mod.Site().parse()
```
Fill `coloctapp` gaps
From #929  , related to #974 

### coloctapp
Between September 29, 2021 and February 02, 2022 we have[ 0 documents](https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=court_id%3Acoloctapp&type=o&order_by=dateFiled%20asc&stat_Precedential=on&stat_Non-Precedential=on&filed_after=09%2F29%2F2021&filed_before=02%2F02%2F2022). We are missing documents, but must [go into PDFs](https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm?year=2021&month=10&Submit=Go) to get them now


Discussion / hints:

@flooie can you please check this source? From what I see we may need to parse the pdfs, since old case information is not available on HTML, as it is in `colo`
Hmm.  Is it possible the html changes.  
Some news about `coloctapp`, the Colorado Courts have just (well, on March 1, 2024) launched a new site for Appellate Opinions, and it actually has past opinions in HTML. We could implement the backscraper from there instead of dealing with PDFs

Check it out [here](https://research.coloradojudicial.gov/search/jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+court:14024_02/*)
CO was one of the worst states. Does this mean it's finally not so terrible? 
This new Colorado site seems to have no search filters except for "court". Getting the document url requires more steps/requests. And it uses `vlex` as the backend. The downloaded opinion PDF comes in a zip, and the document has a `vlex` link in it
![image](https://github.com/freelawproject/juriscraper/assets/14970769/84f1196c-5871-4e85-98b0-bfbce75a32b1)


So, I don't know if it qualifies as not being terrible, but at least it will let us look for past opinions without going into PDFs
So, we also have a more recent gap. We are missing every Opinion announced on:
- April 4, 2024 (2 opinions)
- March 14, 21, 28 (2, 1 and 3 opinions respectively)
- February 1, 15, 22, 29 (...)

I don't know why the scraper has been failing...

Fix patch:
diff --git a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/colo.py b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/colo.py
index 40d3db61f..b61ae1649 100644
--- a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/colo.py
+++ b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/colo.py
@@ -9,112 +9,155 @@
     - 2023-01-05: Updated by WEP
     - 2023-11-19: Drop Selenium by WEP
     - 2023-12-20: Updated with citations, judges and summaries, Palin
+    - 2024-07-04: Update to new site, grossir
 """
 
-import datetime
 import re
-from datetime import date, timedelta
-from typing import Any, Dict
+from datetime import date, datetime
+from typing import Any, Dict, Tuple
+from urllib.parse import urlencode
 
-from dateutil import parser
+from lxml import html
 
+from juriscraper.AbstractSite import logger
+from juriscraper.lib.date_utils import make_date_range_tuples
 from juriscraper.OpinionSiteLinear import OpinionSiteLinear
 
 
 class Site(OpinionSiteLinear):
+    base_url = "https://research.coloradojudicial.gov/search.json"
+    detail_url = "https://research.coloradojudicial.gov/vid/{}.json?include=abstract%2Cparent%2Cmeta%2Cformats%2Cchildren%2Cproperties_with_ids%2Clibrary%2Csource&fat=1&locale=en&hide_ct6=true&t={}"
+    days_interval = 30
+    first_opinion_date = datetime(2010, 1, 1)
+    api_court_code = "14024_01"
+
     def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
         self.court_id = self.__module__
-        self.status = "Published"
-        self.url = "https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Proceedings/Index.cfm"
-
-    def _process_html(self):
-        """"""
-        for row in self.html.xpath("//div[@id='Dispositions']/a"):
-            case_id = row.attrib["onclick"].split("'")[1]
-            div = row.xpath(f"//div[@id='Case_{case_id}']")[0]
-            if not div.xpath(".//a/text()"):
-                # This is set to avoid data decades back
-                continue
-            document_type = div.xpath(".//a/text()")[0]
-            if "Opinion" not in document_type:
-                # Only collect opinions and not orders
-                continue
-            summary = (
-                row.xpath(f"//div[@id='Case_{case_id}']")[0]
-                .text_content()
-                .strip()
-            )
-            url = div.xpath(".//a/@href")[0]
-            title = row.xpath("following-sibling::text()")[0].strip()
-            docket, name = title.split(" ", 1)
-            name, _ = name.split("  ")
-            if "(Honorable" in name:
-                name, judge = name.split("(")
-                name = name.strip()
-                judges = judge.strip(")").strip().replace("Honorable", "")
+        self.params = {
+            "product_id": "WW",
+            "jurisdiction": "US",
+            "content_type": "2",
+            "court": self.api_court_code,
+            "bypass_rabl": "true",
+            "include": "parent,abstract,snippet,properties_with_ids",
+            "per_page": "30",  # Server breaks down when per_page=500, returns 503
+            "page": "1",
+            "sort": "date",
+            "include_local_exclusive": "true",
+            "cbm": "6.0|361.0|5.0|9.0|4.0|2.0=0.01|400.0|1.0|0.001|1.5|0.2",
+            "locale": "en",
+            "hide_ct6": "true",
+            "t": str(datetime.now().timestamp())[:10],
+            "type": "document",
+        }
+        self.url = f"{self.base_url}?{urlencode(self.params)}"
+
+        # Request won't work without some of these X- headers
+        self.request["headers"].update(
+            {
+                "X-Requested-With": "XMLHttpRequest",
+                "X-Root-Account-Email": "colorado@vlex.com",
+                "X-User-Email": "colorado@vlex.com",
+                "X-Webapp-Seed": "9887408",
+            }
+        )
+        self.make_backscrape_iterable(kwargs)
+
+    def _process_html(self) -> None:
+        search_json = self.html
+        logger.info(
+            "Number of results %s; %s in page",
+            search_json["count"],
+            len(search_json["results"]),
+        )
+
+        for result in search_json["results"]:
+            timestamp = str(datetime.now().timestamp())[:10]
+            url = self.detail_url.format(result["id"], timestamp)
+
+            if self.test_mode_enabled():
+                # we have manually nested detail JSONs to
+                # to be able to have a test file
+                detail_json = result["detail_json"]
             else:
-                judges = ""
-            date_filed = self.find_date(summary)
-            if parser.parse(date_filed).date() < self.set_min_date():
-                # Only collect back 6 months
-                break
-            if "https://www.courts.state.co.us/" not in url:
-                url = f"https://www.courts.state.co.us/{url}"
-            self.cases.append(
-                {
-                    "summary": summary,
-                    "date": date_filed,
-                    "name": name,
-                    "docket": docket.strip(","),
-                    "url": url,
-                    "judge": judges,
-                }
-            )
-
-    def set_min_date(self):
-        """Set minimum date to add opinions
-
-        :return: Date 6 months back
-        """
-        if self.test_mode_enabled():
-            today = datetime.date(2023, 11, 19)
-            return today - timedelta(180)
-        else:
-            return date.today() - timedelta(180)
+                # Full case name and docket number are only available
+                # on the detail page
+                self._request_url_get(url)
+                detail_json = self.request["response"].json()
 
-    def find_date(self, summary) -> str:
-        """Find date filed
+            # Example of parallel citation:
+            # https://research.coloradojudicial.gov/vid/907372624
+            citation, parallel_citation = "", ""
+            for p in detail_json["properties"]:
+                label = p["property"]["label"]
+                if label == "Docket Number":
+                    docket_number = p["values"][0]
+                if label == "Parties":
+                    case_name_full = p["values"][0]
+                if label == "Decision Date":
+                    # Note that json['published_at'] is not the date_filed
+                    date_filed = p["values"][0]
+                if label == "Citation":
+                    citation = p["values"][0]
+                    if len(p["values"]) > 1:
+                        parallel_citation = p["values"][1]
 
-        Normally it follows a typical pattern but not always
+            case = {
+                "date": date_filed,
+                "docket": docket_number,
+                "name": case_name_full,
+                "url": f"{detail_json['public_url']}/content",
+                "status": "Published" if citation else "Unknown",
+                "citation": citation,
+                "parallel_citation": parallel_citation,
+            }
+
+            self.cases.append(case)
+
+    def _download_backwards(self, dates: Tuple[date]) -> None:
+        """Make custom date range request
 
-        :param summary: Use summary text to find date filed
-        :return: date as string
+        :param dates: (start_date, end_date) tuple
+        :return None
         """
-        if "Opinion issued" in summary:
-            return summary.split("Opinion issued")[1]
-        date_pattern = re.compile(
-            r"((January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)\s+(\d{1,2})\s?,?\s+(\d{4}))"
+        start = dates[0].strftime("%Y-%m-%d")
+        end = dates[1].strftime("%Y-%m-%d")
+        timestamp = str(datetime.now().timestamp())[:10]
+        params = {**self.params}
+        params.update(
+            {
+                "date": f"{start}..{end}",
+                # These are duplicated by the frontend too
+                "locale": ["en", "en"],
+                "hide_ct6": ["true", "true"],
+                "t": [timestamp, timestamp],
+            }
         )
-        match = re.findall(date_pattern, summary)
-        date_filed = match[-1][0] if match else ""
-        return date_filed
+        self.url = f"{self.base_url}?{urlencode(params)}"
+        self.html = self._download()
+        self._process_html()
 
-    def extract_from_text(self, scraped_text: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
-        """Extract Citation from text
+    def make_backscrape_iterable(self, kwargs: dict) -> None:
+        """Checks if backscrape start and end arguments have been passed
+        by caller, and parses them accordingly
 
-        :param scraped_text: Text of scraped content
-        :return: date filed
+        :param kwargs: passed when initializing the scraper, may or
+            may not contain backscrape controlling arguments
+        :return None
         """
-        m = re.findall(r"(20\d{2})\s(CO)\s(\d+A?)", scraped_text)
-        if m:
-            vol, reporter, page = m[0]
-            return {
-                "Citation": {
-                    "volume": vol,
-                    "reporter": reporter,
-                    "page": page,
-                    "type": 8,  # NEUTRAL in courtlistener Citation model
-                },
-            }
-        return {}
+        start = kwargs.get("backscrape_start")
+        end = kwargs.get("backscrape_end")
+
+        if start:
+            start = datetime.strptime(start, "%m/%d/%Y")
+        else:
+            start = self.first_opinion_date
+        if end:
+            end = datetime.strptime(end, "%m/%d/%Y")
+        else:
+            end = datetime.now()
+
+        self.back_scrape_iterable = make_date_range_tuples(
+            start, end, self.days_interval
+        )
diff --git a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/coloctapp.py b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/coloctapp.py
index 597ceb736..dd962cac5 100644
--- a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/coloctapp.py
+++ b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/coloctapp.py
@@ -9,57 +9,9 @@
     - 2023-11-19: Updated by William E. Palin
 """
 
-import datetime
-import re
+from juriscraper.opinions.united_states.state import colo
 
-from juriscraper.OpinionSiteLinear import OpinionSiteLinear
 
-
-class Site(OpinionSiteLinear):
-    def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
-        super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
-        self.court_id = self.__module__
-        self.year = datetime.date.today().year
-        self.url = "https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm"
-        self.status = None
-
-    def _process_html(self) -> None:
-        """Parses html into case dictionaries
-
-        :return None
-        """
-        if self.test_mode_enabled():
-            self.year = "2023"
-
-        date_xpath = (
-            "//span[text()='Future Case Announcements']/following-sibling::p"
-        )
-        date = self.html.xpath(date_xpath)[0].text_content()
-
-        for row in self.html.xpath("//p"):
-            modified_string = re.sub(r"\s", "", row.text_content())
-            if "PUBLISHED" == modified_string[:9]:
-                self.status = "Published"
-                continue
-            if "UNPUBLISHED" == modified_string[:11]:
-                self.status = None
-                continue
-            if not self.status:
-                continue
-
-            pattern = re.compile(r"\b[0-9A-Z& ]{5,}\b")
-            matches = re.findall(pattern, row.text_content())
-            if not matches:
-                continue
-
-            docket = matches[0].strip()
-            name = row.text_content().replace(docket, "").strip()
-            self.cases.append(
-                {
-                    "name": name,
-                    "docket": docket,
-                    "date": date,
-                    "status": self.status,
-                    "url": f"https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/{self.year}/{docket}-PD.pdf",
-                }
-            )
+class Site(colo.Site):
+    api_court_code = "14024_02"
+    days_interval = 15


Test patch:
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.compare.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.compare.json
index 082f826fd..a431eab46 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.compare.json
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.compare.json
@@ -1,74 +1,26 @@
 [
   {
-    "case_dates": "2023-11-14",
-    "case_names": "in Re People in the Interest of Minor Children J.P.",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA126.pdf",
+    "case_dates": "2024-07-01",
+    "case_names": "Ricardo Castro v. The People of the State of Colorado",
+    "download_urls": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/castro-v-people-1042407550/content",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "23SA126",
-    "judges": "Justin Haenlein",
-    "summaries": "The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of April 7, 2023. On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to turn over potentially privileged documents for in camera review. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2023. The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply. Opinion issued November 14, 2023",
+    "docket_numbers": "22SC712",
+    "citations": "2024 CO 56",
+    "parallel_citations": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2023-10-23",
-    "case_names": "In Re: People v. Walthour, Ashleigh",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA125.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "23SA125",
-    "judges": "Joshua Williford",
-    "summaries": "The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of March 7, 2023. On May 12, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in suppressing the results of an impending blood test because it hadn't been completed by the court's prior deadline. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 9, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply. Opinion issued October 23, 2023",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2023-10-16",
-    "case_names": "In Re People v. Seymour, Gavin",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "23SA12",
-    "judges": "Martin Egelhoff",
-    "summaries": "The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's Order of November 16, 2022. On January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress. The respondents are directed to file a written Answer on or before February 14, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the Answer within which to Reply. Opinion issued October 16, 2023",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2023-09-25",
-    "case_names": "In Re Edwards, Tana v. New Century Hospice",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA91.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "23SA91",
-    "judges": "Mark Bailey",
-    "summaries": "The petitioners seek relief from the trial court's order of December 19, 2022. On April 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 1, 2023. The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. Opinion issued September 25, 2023",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2023-06-20",
-    "case_names": "In Re Smith, Jerrelle v. People",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA2.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
-    "blocked_statuses": false,
-    "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "23SA2",
-    "judges": "Robert Kiesnowski",
-    "summaries": "On January 6, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying bond to the defendant. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply. Opinion issued 6/20/23",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
-  },
-  {
-    "case_dates": "2023-06-05",
-    "case_names": "In Re People v. Kelley, Noelle",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us//userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA874.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
+    "case_dates": "2024-07-01",
+    "case_names": "In re the Marriage of Elyssa M. Fox, and Alexander L. Speaker",
+    "download_urls": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/in-re-marriage-of-1042461692/content",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "22SA874",
-    "judges": "Eric White",
-    "summaries": "The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court's order of November 23, 2022. On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) permitting the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant refused to waive her privilege, and (2) ruling that the defendant waived her privilege. The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023. The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.t Opinion issued on June 5, 2023",
+    "docket_numbers": "24SC76",
+    "citations": "",
+    "parallel_citations": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   }
 ]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.html b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.html
deleted file mode 100644
index 08719bac0..000000000
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,4979 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
-
-    <head><script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scriptsdir/cfform.js"></script>
-<script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scriptsdir/masks.js"></script>
-
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
-    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
-
-
-
-
-        <title>Colorado Judicial Branch - Courts - Supreme Court - Original Proceedings</title>
-
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-small.css" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)" />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-small.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-small.css" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-medium.css" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)" />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-medium.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-medium.css" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-large.css" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-large.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-large.css" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <!--[if lte IE 8]>
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="/assets/scripts/respond.min.js"></script>
-        <![endif]-->
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/global.css" />
-
-        <link href='https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:400,300,700' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/css/Print.css" media="print" />
-        <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/icons/favicon_public.ico" />
-        <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png"/>
-
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/jquery-1.11.0.min.js"></script>
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/global-scripts.js"></script>
-
-		<!-- PNotify -->
-  		<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/PNotify.js"></script>
-  		<link href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/PNotifyBrightTheme.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-		<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/PNotifyButtons.js"></script>
-
-
-
-        <!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
-          <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-JRF3NE5J80"></script>
-          <script>
-            window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
-            function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
-            gtag('js', new Date());
-
-            gtag('config', 'G-JRF3NE5J80');
-          </script>
-
-
-
-<script type="text/javascript">
-<!--
-    _CF_checkCFForm_1 = function(_CF_this)
-    {
-        //reset on submit
-        _CF_error_exists = false;
-        _CF_error_messages = new Array();
-        _CF_error_fields = new Object();
-        _CF_FirstErrorField = null;
-
-
-        //display error messages and return success
-        if( _CF_error_exists )
-        {
-            if( _CF_error_messages.length > 0 )
-            {
-                // show alert() message
-                _CF_onErrorAlert(_CF_error_messages);
-                // set focus to first form error, if the field supports js focus().
-                if( _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].type == "text" )
-                { _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].focus(); }
-
-            }
-            return false;
-        }else {
-            return true;
-        }
-    }
-//-->
-</script>
-</head>
-
-	<body>
-    	<a href="#main-content" class="skip-content">Skip to main content</a>
-
-
-
-    <div class="header-announcement"><a href='/newsite.cfm'>New Judicial Website coming! Click here to read about this exciting news!</a></div>
-	<div class="header-top">
-    	<div class="header-mobile-left"></div>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="header-mobile-right"></a>
-        <div class="inner-header">
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="home-link"></a>
-            <div class="searchbar">
-                <form name="frm_Search" id="frm_Search" action="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search/index.cfm" style="margin:0;" method="get" class="MainSearch">
-                	<input type="submit" name="name" value="" style="float:right" />
-                    <input name="q" type="text" id="q" value="Search" onclick="if(this.value == 'Search'){this.value = '';}" onblur="if(this.value == ''){this.value = 'Search';}" style="float:right" />
-                </form>
-            </div>
-        </div>
-    </div>
-
-    <div id="headerDisplay">
-
-        <div id="headercontainer">
-            <div id="header">
-                <ul>
-                    <li class="noscreen"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us">Home</a></li>
-                    <li class="noscreen"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search.cfm">Search</a></li>
-                    <li class="current"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" class="tab">Courts</a>
-                    <ul>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Choose.cfm">Trial Courts by County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/District/Choose.cfm">Trial Courts by District</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm">Supreme Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Index.cfm">Court of Appeals</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Water/Index.cfm">Water Courts</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Denver_Juvenile/Index.cfm">Denver Juvenile Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Denver_Probate/Index.cfm">Denver Probate Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/WeekendBondHearing.cfm">Weekend Bond Hearing</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Education/Index.cfm">Educational Resources</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/">Livestreaming</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Index.cfm" class="tab">Probation</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/County/Choose.cfm">By County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Denver_Juvenile/Index.cfm">Denver Juvenile Probation</a></li>
-                         <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Resources.cfm">Resources</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Index.cfm" class="tab">Jury</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/County/Choose.cfm">By County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/District/Choose.cfm">By District</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Jury_Commissioners.cfm">List of Jury Commissioners</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Employer.cfm">Information for Employers</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/FAQs.cfm">Jury FAQs</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/jury/video/ColoradoJuror.mp4">Colorado Jury Service Video</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/Index.cfm" class="tab">Self&nbsp;Help&nbsp;&frasl;&nbsp;Forms</a>
-                    <ul>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/Index.cfm">All Court Forms and Instructions</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/Espanol/Index.cfm">Formularios e instrucciones judiciales en espa&ntilde;ol</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/adoption/">Adoption</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/appeals/">Appeals</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/bonds/">Bonds</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/criminalcases/">Criminal Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/extremeriskprotectionorders/">Extreme Risk Protection Orders</a></li>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/family/">Family Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/guardianconserv/">Guardianship &amp; Conservatorship</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/housing/">Housing Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/judgeandgarnish/">Judgments &amp; Garnishments</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/money/">Money Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/namechange/">Name Changes</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/protectionorders/">Protection Orders</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/sealingrecords/">Sealing Records</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/smallclaims/">Small Claims Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/estate/">Trusts, Estates &amp; Wills</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/watercases/">Water Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=jp3dnad">Dependency &amp; Neglect Advisement</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Index.cfm" class="tab">Careers</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Opportunities.cfm">Career Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Internship.cfm">Internship Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Judge.cfm">Judge Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreter Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Volunteer.cfm">Volunteer Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Benefits.cfm">Benefits</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Descriptions.cfm">Job Descriptions</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/FAQs.cfm">Career FAQs</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Index.cfm" class="tab">Media</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Press_Releases.cfm">Press Releases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm">Recent Orders &amp; Opinions of Interest</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Alerts.cfm">Media Alerts</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Appointments.cfm">Judge Appointments</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Law_School.cfm">Law School for Journalists</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=pubacag">Access Guide to Public Records</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Link_Request.cfm">Web Link Request</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li ><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Index.cfm" class="tab">Administration</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=pa">Court Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=exec">Executive Division</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=finan">Financial Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=hr">Human Resources</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=jbits">Information Technology Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=prob">Probation Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/committees/index.cfm">SCAO Committees</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                </ul>
-            </div>
-        </div>
-
-    </div>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-            <div id="main-wrapper">
-                <div id="main-content">
-
-    <span class="BreadcrumbsMobile">
-
-            <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="Breadcrumbs" style="padding-left:0px;">Home</a>
-
-
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" title="Courts" class="Breadcrumbs">Courts</a>
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm" title="Supreme Court" class="Breadcrumbs">Supreme Court</a>
-		<span class="Breadcrumbs_Selected">Original Proceedings</span>
-
-
-    </span>
-    <div style="clear:both"></div>
-
-                    <div class="wrapper-full">
-                        <div class="center-content-left">
-
-    <span class="BreadcrumbsLarge">
-
-
-            	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="Breadcrumbs" style="padding-left:0px;">Home</a>
-
-
-
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" title="Courts" class="Breadcrumbs">Courts</a>
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm" title="Supreme Court" class="Breadcrumbs">Supreme Court</a>
-		<span class="Breadcrumbs_Selected">Original Proceedings</span>
-
-
-    </span>
-    <div style="clear:both"></div>
-
-
-		<script language="javascript">
-			<!--
-			function show_case(_case_num){
-				if( document.getElementById("Case_" + _case_num).style.display == "block"){
-					document.getElementById("icon_" + _case_num).src = "https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png";
-					document.getElementById("Case_" + _case_num).style.display = "none";
-				}
-				else{
-					document.getElementById("icon_" + _case_num).src = "https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/minus.png";
-					document.getElementById("Case_" + _case_num).style.display = "block";
-				}
-			}
-
-			function hideProceeding(c){
-					if(c == 'Pending'){
-						document.getElementById('Pending').style.display = 'block';
-						document.getElementById('Dispositions').style.display = 'none';
-					}
-					if(c == 'Dispositions'){
-							document.getElementById('Dispositions').style.display = 'block';
-							document.getElementById('Pending').style.display = 'none';
-					}
-
-			}
-			-->
-		</script>
-
-		<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
-			<tr>
-				<td class="Title">Original Proceedings Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 in the Colorado Supreme Court</td>
-			</tr>
-        </table>
-		<br />
-        Click on the plus icon to see the full summary of a particular case.</td>
-		<br /><br />
-        <form name="CFForm_1" id="CFForm_1" action="&#x2f;Courts&#x2f;Supreme_Court&#x2f;Proceedings&#x2f;Index.cfm" method="post" class="WebForm" onsubmit="return _CF_checkCFForm_1(this)">
-    	<label>Choose a Proceeding Type</label><br />
-        <select name="Proceeding" id="Proceeding"  onchange="hideProceeding(this.value)" >
-
-            	<option value="Pending">Pending</option>
-                <option value="Dispositions">Dispositions</option>
-        </select>
-    	</form>
-
-    	<br />
-
-        <div id="Pending">
-        	The Colorado Supreme Court has issued a Rule to Show Cause in the cases listed below. These cases are currently pending in the Court.
-            <br /><br />
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA289');"><img id="icon_23SA289" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA289 In Re: People v. Mobley  (Honorable Victor Zerbi)" /></a>
-                23SA289 In Re: People v. Mobley  (Honorable Victor Zerbi)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA289" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the municipal court&rsquo;s order of June 7, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On November 9, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the municipal court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion to declare a provision of the Municipal Code unconstitutional as violative of equal protection. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 7, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA273');"><img id="icon_23SA273" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA273 In Re People v. Maes, Carlos (Honorable Darren Vahle)" /></a>
-                23SA273 In Re People v. Maes, Carlos (Honorable Darren Vahle)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA273" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of September 5, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in declining to review the magistrate&rsquo;s preliminary findings of probable cause. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 16, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA271');"><img id="icon_23SA271" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA271 In Re People v. Honstein, Harold (Honorable Elizabeth Brodsky" /></a>
-                23SA271 In Re People v. Honstein, Harold (Honorable Elizabeth Brodsky<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA271" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of October 2, 2023, and October 10, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying a motion to quash a subpoena for the assigned prosecutor to testify at the defendant&rsquo;s trial. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 13, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA227');"><img id="icon_23SA227" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA227 In Re People v. Howell, Joseph (Honorable Adam Espinosa)" /></a>
-                23SA227 In Re People v. Howell, Joseph (Honorable Adam Espinosa)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA227" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 31, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On September 11, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss under the force-against-intruders statute. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 9, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA220');"><img id="icon_23SA220" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA220 In Re People v. Phillips, Khristina (Honorable Steven Katzman)" /></a>
-                23SA220 In Re People v. Phillips, Khristina (Honorable Steven Katzman)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA220" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of August 18, 2023, and August 25, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On September 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the respondent filed an interlocutory appeal in good faith, meaning the petitioner&rsquo;s speedy trial right was tolled during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA209');"><img id="icon_23SA209" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA209 In Re: People v. Mark Burns (Honorable Steven Schultz)" /></a>
-                23SA209 In Re: People v. Mark Burns (Honorable Steven Schultz)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA209" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 17, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On August 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to provide disclosures regarding his alternate-suspect defense forty-two days prior to trial. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 13, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA186');"><img id="icon_23SA186" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA186  In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC (Honorable Sean Finn)" /></a>
-                23SA186  In Re: Michael Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC (Honorable Sean Finn)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA186" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 3, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On August 4, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner&rsquo;s claims for negligence and negligence per se in light of liability waivers. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before September 1, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA167');"><img id="icon_23SA167" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA167 - In Re the Marriage of Green, Barbara and Green, Jeffry - (Honorable Christine Antoun)" /></a>
-                23SA167 - In Re the Marriage of Green, Barbara and Green, Jeffry - (Honorable Christine Antoun)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA167" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of June 13, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On July 6, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before August 3, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA146');"><img id="icon_23SA146" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA146 In Re GHP Horwarth, P.C. v. Kazazian, Nina" /></a>
-                23SA146 In Re GHP Horwarth, P.C. v. Kazazian, Nina<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA146" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioners seek an order from the Supreme Court enjoining the respondent &ldquo;from ever proceeding pro se as a proponent of any claim or other request for relief, including the filing of papers and making court appearances, whether acting individually or on behalf of a trust, company or other entity, in any pending or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado.&rdquo; On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the petitioners&rsquo; requested relief should not be granted. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before July 6, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA140');"><img id="icon_23SA140" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA140, In Re: People v. James Dye (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow)" /></a>
-                23SA140, In Re: People v. James Dye (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA140" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 4, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On June 7, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to disclose the nature of his alternate suspect defense forty-five days before trial. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 5, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA131');"><img id="icon_23SA131" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA131 In Re People in the interest of Minor Child C.J.T. (Honorable Charles Hobbs)" /></a>
-                23SA131 In Re People in the interest of Minor Child C.J.T. (Honorable Charles Hobbs)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA131" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 27, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On May 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting a non-party access to unredacted records. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 27, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA133');"><img id="icon_23SA133" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA133, In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Marie Moses)" /></a>
-                23SA133, In Re: Antero Treatment v. Veolia Water (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Marie Moses)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA133" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 13, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On May 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the respondents to only post a supersedeas bond of $25 million, rather than 125% of the judgment. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 21, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply</p>
-
-					<hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA111');"><img id="icon_23SA111" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png"align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA111 In Re: People v. Tippet, Joseph (Honorable Michael Meyrick)" /></a>
-                23SA111 In Re: People v. Tippet, Joseph (Honorable Michael Meyrick)<br />
-				<div id="Case_23SA111" style="display:none;">
-					<p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 4, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in reducing the defendant&rsquo;s charges in light of discovery violations prior to the preliminary hearing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 24, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-
-                </div>
-
-		</div>
-
-		<div id="Dispositions" style="display:none">
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA126');"><img id="icon_23SA126" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA126 in Re People in the Interest of Minor Children J.P. (Honorable Justin Haenlein)" /></a>
-			23SA126 in Re People in the Interest of Minor Children J.P. (Honorable Justin Haenlein)&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA126" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 7, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to turn over potentially privileged documents for in camera review. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA126.pdf">Opinion</a> issued November 14, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA125');"><img id="icon_23SA125" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA125, In Re: People v. Walthour, Ashleigh (Honorable Joshua Williford)" /></a>
-			23SA125, In Re: People v. Walthour, Ashleigh (Honorable Joshua Williford)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA125" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 7, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On May 12, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in suppressing the results of an impending blood test because it hadn&rsquo;t been completed by the court&rsquo;s prior deadline. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 9, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA125.pdf">Opinion</a> issued October 23, 2023</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA256');"><img id="icon_23SA256" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA256 In Re People in the interest of I.W. & H.W. (Honorable Robin Chittum)" /></a>
-			23SA256 In Re People in the interest of I.W. & H.W. (Honorable Robin Chittum)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA256" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 6, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On October 5, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in setting trial beyond statutorily mandated deadlines for Expedited Permanency Planning cases. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 12, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner&rsquo;s reply brief is due on October 16, 2023.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA256.pdf">Order</a> issued October 17, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA12');"><img id="icon_23SA12" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA12 In Re People v. Seymour, Gavin (Honorable Martin Egelhoff)" /></a>
-			23SA12 In Re People v. Seymour, Gavin (Honorable Martin Egelhoff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA12" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&#39;s Order of November 16, 2022.<br />
-On January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant&#39;s motion to suppress.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written Answer on or before February 14, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the Answer within which to Reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf">Opinion</a> issued October 16, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA91');"><img id="icon_23SA91" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA91 In Re Edwards, Tana v. New Century Hospice (Honorable Mark Bailey)" /></a>
-			23SA91 In Re Edwards, Tana v. New Century Hospice (Honorable Mark Bailey)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA91" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 19, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On April 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendants&rsquo; motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff&rsquo;s claim for negligent supervision. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 1, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA91.pdf">Opinion</a> issued September 25, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA105');"><img id="icon_23SA105" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA105 In Re People v. Burkhalter, Bryan (Honorable Nancy Salomone)" /></a>
-			23SA105 In Re People v. Burkhalter, Bryan (Honorable Nancy Salomone)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA105" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of March 13, 2023, and April 20, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On April 21, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant&rsquo;s motion to admit rape shield evidence. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 19, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA105.pdf">Order </a>issued July 14, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA148');"><img id="icon_23SA148" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA148 In Re Hollaway, Brian  (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler)" /></a>
-			23SA148 In Re Hollaway, Brian  (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA148" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 18, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for excessive confinement in violation of section 16-8.5-116(1). &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA148.pdf">Order</a> issued July 10, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA149');"><img id="icon_23SA149" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA149 In Re Hollaway, Brian (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler)" /></a>
-			23SA149 In Re Hollaway, Brian (Honorable Lily W. Oeffler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA149" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 18, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for excessive confinement in violation of section 16-8.5-116(1). &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA149.pdf">Order </a>issued July 10, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA102');"><img id="icon_23SA102" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA102 In Re People v. Qu, Richard (Honorable Kelly Lafave)" /></a>
-			23SA102 In Re People v. Qu, Richard (Honorable Kelly Lafave)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA102" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of February 14, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 22, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA102.pdf">Order</a> issued on June 30, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA2');"><img id="icon_23SA2" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA2 In Re Smith, Jerrelle v. People (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)" /></a>
-			23SA2 In Re Smith, Jerrelle v. People (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA2" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On January 6, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying bond to the defendant. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA2.pdf">Opinion</a> issued 6/20/23</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA874');"><img id="icon_22SA874" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA874 In Re People v. Kelley, Noelle (Honorable Eric White)" /></a>
-			22SA874 In Re People v. Kelley, Noelle (Honorable Eric White)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA874" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 23, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1)&nbsp;permitting the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant refused to waive her privilege, and (2)&nbsp;ruling that the defendant waived her privilege. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.t</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA874.pdf">Opinion</a> issued on June 5, 2023</font></span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA81');"><img id="icon_23SA81" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA81 In Re Elliott, Winthrop v. Doordash (Honorable Elizabeth Volz)" /></a>
-			23SA81 In Re Elliott, Winthrop v. Doordash (Honorable Elizabeth Volz)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA81" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of February 24, 2023, and March 9, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On March 14, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering the petitioner to produce certain documents in discovery. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 11, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-<a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA81.pdf">Order of Court Rule Discharged</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA30');"><img id="icon_23SA30" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA30 In Re People v. Jacob Woodside (Honorable John Briggs)" /></a>
-			23SA30 In Re People v. Jacob Woodside (Honorable John Briggs)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA30" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On January 25, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant&rsquo;s guilty plea in this case would constitute a second offense. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 22, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA30.pdf">Opinion</a> issued May 22, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA34');"><img id="icon_23SA34" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA34 In Re: Arvada Village Gardens v. Ana Garate (Honorable Sara Garrido)" /></a>
-			23SA34 In Re: Arvada Village Gardens v. Ana Garate (Honorable Sara Garrido)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA34" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 20, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On January 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss and finding that the notice requirement in the CARES Act had expired. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 24, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA34.pdf">Opinion</a> issued May 15, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA63');"><img id="icon_23SA63" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA63 In Re the Marriage of Webb-Galarza and Strong, Jason (Honorable Jacob Edson)" /></a>
-			23SA63 In Re the Marriage of Webb-Galarza and Strong, Jason (Honorable Jacob Edson)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA63" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of February 16, 2023.</p>
-
-<p>On March 3, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in vacating the scheduled hearing, ordering mediation, and not otherwise acting on the petitioner&rsquo;s requests for parenting time. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 31, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-<a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA63.pdf">/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/23SA63.pdf</a>Order making rule absolute issued May 12, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA323');"><img id="icon_22SA323" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA323 In Re People in the Interest of A.C. (Honorable Jayne Candea-Ramsey)" /></a>
-			22SA323 In Re People in the Interest of A.C. (Honorable Jayne Candea-Ramsey)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA323" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of August 5, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a magistrate&rsquo;s finding that an individual had been restored to competency. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 2, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="color: blue; font-family: " times="">&nbsp;</span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA323.pdf">Opinion </a>issued April 25, 2023</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA384');"><img id="icon_22SA384" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA384  In Re People v. Platteel, Evan (Honorable Thomas Mulvahill & Zachary Malkinson)" /></a>
-			22SA384  In Re People v. Platteel, Evan (Honorable Thomas Mulvahill & Zachary Malkinson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA384" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 15, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the victim to testify at the defendant&rsquo;s preliminary hearing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA384.pdf">Opinion</a> issued April 24, 2023</font></span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA388');"><img id="icon_22SA388" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA388 In Re People v. Maez, Christopher (Honorable Jeffrey WIlson)" /></a>
-			22SA388 In Re People v. Maez, Christopher (Honorable Jeffrey WIlson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA388" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&#39;s order of November 1, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the Sheriff&#39;s Department to disclose certain video recordings to the prosecution.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 4, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/22SA388%20order.pdf">Order issued February 28, 2023</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA348');"><img id="icon_22SA348" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA348 In Re People v. Justice James (Honorable Allison Ernst)" /></a>
-			22SA348 In Re People v. Justice James (Honorable Allison Ernst)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA348" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of August 17, 2022, and September 23, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On October 27, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering mediation. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA347_22SA348.pdf" style="color: rgb(7, 130, 193); font-family: sans-serif, Arial, Verdana, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Opinion</a><span style="font-family: sans-serif, Arial, Verdana, &quot;Trebuchet MS&quot;; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">&nbsp;Issued February 27, 2023</span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA347');"><img id="icon_22SA347" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA347 In Re People v. Justice, James (Honorable Allison Ernst)" /></a>
-			22SA347 In Re People v. Justice, James (Honorable Allison Ernst)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA347" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in; line-height: normal;"><span font-size:="" mso-fareast-font-family:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of August 17, 2022, and September 23, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in; line-height: normal;"><span font-size:="" mso-fareast-font-family:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in; line-height: normal;"><span font-size:="" mso-fareast-font-family:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On October 28, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering mediation. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in; line-height: normal;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in; line-height: normal;"><span font-size:="" mso-fareast-font-family:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA347_22SA348.pdf">Opinion</a> Issued February 27, 2023</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3">&nbsp;</font></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA383');"><img id="icon_22SA383" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA383 In Re People v. Saville, Alan (Honorable Jay Grant)" /></a>
-			22SA383 In Re People v. Saville, Alan (Honorable Jay Grant)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA383" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 10, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in precluding the opinion of an expert witness for the defendant. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 3, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="color: blue; font-family: " times="">&nbsp;</span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/22SA383%20ORDER.pdf"><font color="#0000ff">Order issued February 17, 2023</font></a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('23SA7');"><img id="icon_23SA7" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 23SA7 In Re People v Speed, Cori (Honorable Ben Leutwyler)" /></a>
-			23SA7 In Re People v Speed, Cori (Honorable Ben Leutwyler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_23SA7" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 21, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On January 23, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant&rsquo;s motion for a restorability hearing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 21, 2023.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-<strong>This matter was dismissed at the request of parties on February 15, 2023.</strong></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA172');"><img id="icon_22SA172" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA172, In Re People v. Kembel, Timothy (Honorable Sarah Cure)" /></a>
-			22SA172, In Re People v. Kembel, Timothy (Honorable Sarah Cure)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA172" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of March 9, 2022, and May 10, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant&rsquo;s motion for a bifurcated trial. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA172-22SA173.pdf">Opinion issued January 30, 2023</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA173');"><img id="icon_22SA173" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA173, In Re People v. Dexter, Kerrie (Honorable Sarah Cure)" /></a>
-			22SA173, In Re People v. Dexter, Kerrie (Honorable Sarah Cure)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA173" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of May 10, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant&rsquo;s motion for a bifurcated trial. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA172-22SA173.pdf">Opinion January 30, 2023</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA272');"><img id="icon_22SA272" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA272 In Re People v. Hacke, Jonn (Honorable Amiel Markenson)" /></a>
-			22SA272 In Re People v. Hacke, Jonn (Honorable Amiel Markenson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA272" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 26, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On August 19, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 16, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA272.pdf">Opinion issued </a>January 30, 2023</span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA282');"><img id="icon_22SA282" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA282 In Re People in the interest of L.S. (Honorable Don Toussaint)" /></a>
-			22SA282 In Re People in the interest of L.S. (Honorable Don Toussaint)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA282" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioners seek relief from the juvenile court&rsquo;s order of July 28, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On September 1, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the juvenile court did not err in granting Mother&rsquo;s motion for a directed verdict. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="color: blue; font-family: " times="">&nbsp;</span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA282.pdf"><span font-size:="" new="" style="color: blue; font-family: " times="">Opinion Issued January 23, 2023</span></a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA264');"><img id="icon_22SA264" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA264  In Re McMichael, Patricia v Encompass (Honorable Patrick Butler)" /></a>
-			22SA264  In Re McMichael, Patricia v Encompass (Honorable Patrick Butler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA264" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of June 30, 2022, and July 27, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On August 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) setting aside the default judgment, and (2)&nbsp;granting the defendant&rsquo;s motion to change venue. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 13, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioners have 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA264.pdf">Opinion issued January 9, 2023</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA195');"><img id="icon_22SA195" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA195 In Re Nelson, Floyd v. Encompass (Honorable Andrew Hartman)" /></a>
-			22SA195 In Re Nelson, Floyd v. Encompass (Honorable Andrew Hartman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2023<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA195" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of May 27, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On June 14, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the defendant&rsquo;s motion for change of venue. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 12, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA195.pdf">Opinion issued January 9, 2023</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA290');"><img id="icon_22SA290" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA290 In Re People v. Knisley, Belinda (Honorable Paul Dunkelman)" /></a>
-			22SA290 In Re People v. Knisley, Belinda (Honorable Paul Dunkelman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA290" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of August 15, 2022, and September 2, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On September 7, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1)&nbsp;denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to quash a subpoena requiring him to sit for a deposition, and (2)&nbsp;denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for a protective order. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 5, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA290.pdf">Opinion Issued December 19, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA256');"><img id="icon_22SA256" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA256 In Re Adams County v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Mark Warner)" /></a>
-			22SA256 In Re Adams County v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Mark Warner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA256" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of August 1, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On August 10, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to require the plaintiff to appropriate funds to pay the defendant&rsquo;s attorney&rsquo;s fees. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 7, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply..</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/22SA256.pdf">Court order issued October 10, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA73');"><img id="icon_22SA73" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA73, In re: Interest of A.C. (Honorable Audrey Galloway)" /></a>
-			22SA73, In re: Interest of A.C. (Honorable Audrey Galloway)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA73" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of January 13, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On April 1, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in adopting the magistrate&rsquo;s order requiring the petitioner to undergo a reassessment evaluation. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 29, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA73.pdf">Opinion issued October 4, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA207');"><img id="icon_22SA207" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA207 In Re People v. Wright, Calvin (Honorable Jessica Curtis)" /></a>
-			22SA207 In Re People v. Wright, Calvin (Honorable Jessica Curtis)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA207" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of December 27, 2021, and February 4, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner waived their right to a preliminary hearing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before July 21, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/22SA207.pdf">Court order issued September 30, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA71');"><img id="icon_22SA71" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA71, Interest of A.S.M. (Honorable Beth Elliott-Dumler)" /></a>
-			22SA71, Interest of A.S.M. (Honorable Beth Elliott-Dumler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA71" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&#39;s order of February 4, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On April 4, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in finding that it couldn&#39;t review the magistrate&#39;s order because it lacked jurisdiction.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 2, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA71.pdf">Opinion Issued September 26, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA108');"><img id="icon_22SA108" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA108, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff)" /></a>
-			22SA108, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA108" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 13, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On May 3, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 31, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA108_22SA111.pdf">Opinion issued September 26, 2022</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA111');"><img id="icon_22SA111" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA111, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff)" /></a>
-			22SA111, In Re State of Colorado v. Juul Labs, Inc. (Honorable J. Eliff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA111" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 13, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On May 3, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 31, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA108_22SA111.pdf">Opinion issued September 26, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA171');"><img id="icon_22SA171" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA171, In Re the Marriage of Weber (Honorable Abbey De Boyes & Joel Schaefer)" /></a>
-			22SA171, In Re the Marriage of Weber (Honorable Abbey De Boyes & Joel Schaefer)&nbsp;&nbsp;Aug 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA171" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from both the magistrate&rsquo;s order of February 11, 2021, and the district court&rsquo;s order of April 28, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On May 20, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why (1)&nbsp;the magistrate did not err in modifying parenting time, and (2)&nbsp;the district court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for a mediation exemption. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/22SA171.pdf">Court order issued August 11, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA31');"><img id="icon_22SA31" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA31 In Re the Parental Responsibilities of E.K. (Honorable Cynthia Dianne Mares)" /></a>
-			22SA31 In Re the Parental Responsibilities of E.K. (Honorable Cynthia Dianne Mares)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA31" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of February 3, 2022.</p>
-
-<p>On February 11, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner&rsquo;s petition for lack of standing. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 11, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA31.pdf">Opinion issued June 21, 2022</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA383');"><img id="icon_21SA383" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA383 In Re People in the Interest of S.A. (Groome, Stephen Honorable)" /></a>
-			21SA383 In Re People in the Interest of S.A. (Groome, Stephen Honorable)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA383" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On December 30, 2021 the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering therapeutic visitation between the subject of the dependency and neglect proceeding and his younger siblings, who are not subject to the dependency and neglect proceeding.&nbsp; The Court directs respondents to limit their briefing to whether the trial court has jurisdiction to enter this order.&nbsp; Respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 13, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA383.pdf">Opinion issued June 13, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA6');"><img id="icon_22SA6" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA6  In Re: People in interest of A.P. (Honorable Don Toussaint)" /></a>
-			22SA6  In Re: People in interest of A.P. (Honorable Don Toussaint)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA6" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&#39;s order of December 13, 2021</p>
-
-<p>On January 12, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondents relief from the prior adjudiciation and dispositional orders.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 9, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2022/22SA6.pdf">Opinion issued June 6, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('22SA122');"><img id="icon_22SA122" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 22SA122, In Re DIA Brewing v. MCE-DIA (Honorble Darryl Shockley)" /></a>
-			22SA122, In Re DIA Brewing v. MCE-DIA (Honorble Darryl Shockley)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_22SA122" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of May 1, 2022.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On May 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 5 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/22SA122.pdf">Order 6-3-22 Made Absolute</a></font></span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA308');"><img id="icon_21SA308" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA308 In Re People v Cortes-Gonzalez, Jared (Honorable Timothy Kerns)" /></a>
-			21SA308 In Re People v Cortes-Gonzalez, Jared (Honorable Timothy Kerns)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA308" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of June 5, 2021, and September 29, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On October 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1)&nbsp;finding that the defendant had waived attorney-client privilege, and (2)&nbsp;ordering the Public Defender&rsquo;s Office to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before November 19, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA308.pdf">Opinion issued on March 21, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA370');"><img id="icon_21SA370" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA370 In Re In the Interest of A.M.K. (Hon. Sara Price)" /></a>
-			21SA370 In Re In the Interest of A.M.K. (Hon. Sara Price)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA370" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On December 14, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the magistrate did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 11, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/court%20order%2021SA370.pdf">Court order issued March 18, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA350');"><img id="icon_21SA350" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA350  In Re People v. Sanchez, Veronica (Honorable Allison Esser)" /></a>
-			21SA350  In Re People v. Sanchez, Veronica (Honorable Allison Esser)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA350" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 29, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On November 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to make either a pretrial disclosure or an offer of proof regarding her planned alternate suspect defense. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 20, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/21SA350.pdf">Order issued March 17, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA381');"><img id="icon_21SA381" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA381 In Re: Adams County Board v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Jeffrey Smith)" /></a>
-			21SA381 In Re: Adams County Board v. Culpepper, Lisa (Honorable Jeffrey Smith)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA381" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the magistrate&rsquo;s order of December 15, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On December 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in partially denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to disqualify plaintiff&rsquo;s counsel. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2022.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/21SA381.pdf">Court order issued February 17, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA286');"><img id="icon_21SA286" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA286 In Re People v. Greer, Nicholas (Hon. Joshua Williford)" /></a>
-			21SA286 In Re People v. Greer, Nicholas (Hon. Joshua Williford)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA286" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of August 2, 2021, and August 30, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On September 22, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the petitioner does not qualify for representation by the Public Defender. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 20, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA286.pdf">Opinion issued on January 31, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA290');"><img id="icon_21SA290" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA290 In Re People v. Watkins, Cassidy (Honorable Joseph Whitfield)" /></a>
-			21SA290 In Re People v. Watkins, Cassidy (Honorable Joseph Whitfield)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2022<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA290" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of July 21, 2021, and July 23, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On September 28, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of her mental condition. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 26, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/21SA290.pdf">Court order issued January 6, 2022</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA260');"><img id="icon_21SA260" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA260 In Re the Marriage of Nicole Flores and Hakiowskie Flores (Honorable Randall C. Arp) " /></a>
-			21SA260 In Re the Marriage of Nicole Flores and Hakiowskie Flores (Honorable Randall C. Arp) &nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA260" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of August 2, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate&rsquo;s order denying the petitioner&rsquo;s emergency motion to enroll his children in school. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 28, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/21SA260.pdf">Court order issued December 21, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA153');"><img id="icon_21SA153" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA153 In Re People v Viburg, Kevin (Honorable Phillip McNulty)" /></a>
-			21SA153 In Re People v Viburg, Kevin (Honorable Phillip McNulty)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA153" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of March 11, 2021, and April 30, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss his felony DUI charge on retrial. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 8, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA153.pdf">Opinion issued December 20, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA55');"><img id="icon_21SA55" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA55 In Re Ronquillo, Maribel v Eco Clean (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)" /></a>
-			21SA55 In Re Ronquillo, Maribel v Eco Clean (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA55" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of August 4, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding as a matter of law that a lien purchaser is not a collateral source under section 13-21-111.6, C.R.S. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 31, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA55.pdf">Opinion issued December 20, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA273');"><img id="icon_21SA273" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA273 In Re PacifiCorp v. Cross Mountain (Honorable Sandra Gardner)" /></a>
-			21SA273 In Re PacifiCorp v. Cross Mountain (Honorable Sandra Gardner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA273" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of May 7, 2021, and August 24, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in staying the petitioner&rsquo;s condemnation proceeding. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 25, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/ORDER%2021SA273.pdf">Order issued on December 2, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA354');"><img id="icon_21SA354" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA354 In Re Jackson, Kylee v McAlonan, Susan (Honorable Frederick Martinez)" /></a>
-			21SA354 In Re Jackson, Kylee v McAlonan, Susan (Honorable Frederick Martinez)&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA354" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of November 5, 2021, and November 12, 2021.</p>
-
-<p>On November 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to (1)&nbsp;upload unredacted mental health records into the court&rsquo;s e-filing system under seal, and (2)&nbsp;disclose certain redacted mental health records to the defendant. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 21, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/21SA354%20ORDER.pdf">Order issued November 30, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA276');"><img id="icon_21SA276" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA276 & 21SA269 In Re BNSF v. Lange, Kenneth (Hon. Todd Taylor)" /></a>
-			21SA276 & 21SA269 In Re BNSF v. Lange, Kenneth (Hon. Todd Taylor)&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA276" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On September 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting immediate possession of real property to the respondent and consolidated this case with Supreme Court Case No. 21SA269.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 15, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; Briefs are to be filed into Case No. 21SA276.&nbsp; No additional documents may be filed into 21SA269.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2021SA276.pdf">Court Order issued November 5, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA429');"><img id="icon_20SA429" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA429 In Re Brown, Erica v Long Romero, R.N., Shari (Honorable John Wheeler)" /></a>
-			20SA429 In Re Brown, Erica v Long Romero, R.N., Shari (Honorable John Wheeler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA429" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 16, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span font-size:="" new="" style="font-family: " times=""><font color="#000000">On January 4, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting a defendant&rsquo;s motion for partial summary judgment. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before February 1, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA429.pdf">Opinion Issued on September 27, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA147');"><img id="icon_21SA147" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA147 In Re Francis, Robert v Wegener, Benjamin (Honorable Shelley Gilman)" /></a>
-			21SA147 In Re Francis, Robert v Wegener, Benjamin (Honorable Shelley Gilman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA147" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of February 8, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On May 7, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the respondent should not be enjoined from seeking any affirmative relief while appearing pro se in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA147.pdf">Opinion issued September 13, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA85');"><img id="icon_21SA85" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA85 In Re People v Sherwood, Ian (Honorable Gregory Robert Werner)" /></a>
-			21SA85 In Re People v Sherwood, Ian (Honorable Gregory Robert Werner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA85" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 9, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On March 12, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in calculating the respondent&rsquo;s speedy trial deadline such that the new trial date falls beyond the deadline. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 9, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA85.pdf">Opinion issued June 28, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA3');"><img id="icon_21SA3" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA3 In Re People v Sprinkle, Regina (Honorable Chad Miller)" /></a>
-			21SA3 In Re People v Sprinkle, Regina (Honorable Chad Miller)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA3" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 9, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to provide records in response to a subpoena duces tecum. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA3.pdf">Opinion Issued June 28, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA166');"><img id="icon_21SA166" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA166 In Re the interest of G.A. (Honorable Katherine Delgado)" /></a>
-			21SA166 In Re the interest of G.A. (Honorable Katherine Delgado)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA166" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of March 12, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;<span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On May 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering the minor child to receive all medically recommended and routine childhood vaccinations pursuant to the schedule recommended by her pediatrician. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 4, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2021SA166.pdf">Court Order June 25, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA87');"><img id="icon_21SA87" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA87 In Re Winninger, Lindsay v Kirchner, Doris (Honorable Russell Granger)" /></a>
-			21SA87 In Re Winninger, Lindsay v Kirchner, Doris (Honorable Russell Granger)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA87" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of January 20, 2021, and January 25, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause, directing Respondents to answer why (1) the term &ldquo;theft,&rdquo; as that term is used in section 18-4-405, C.R.S. (2020), encompasses the theft of medical records or medical information under section 18-4-412(1), C.R.S. (2020), such that Respondents have standing to pursue their civil theft counterclaim in this case; and (2) Respondents&rsquo; civil theft counterclaim is not barred by section 18-4-412(5).&nbsp; Respondents are directed to file their written answer on or before April 13, 2021.&nbsp; Petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2021/21SA87.pdf">Opinion Issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA375');"><img id="icon_20SA375" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA375 In Re People v Manaois, Michael (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Ross Buchanan)" /></a>
-			20SA375 In Re People v Manaois, Michael (Honorable Martin Egelhoff & Honorable Ross Buchanan)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA375" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 17, 2020, as well as the court of appeals&rsquo; opinion of February 6, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On November 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in vacating the respondent&rsquo;s guilty plea, along with the court&rsquo;s judgment of conviction and sentence. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 7, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA375.pdf">Opinion issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA373');"><img id="icon_20SA373" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA373 In Re People v Lowe, Albert (Honorable Ben Leutwyler)" /></a>
-			20SA373 In Re People v Lowe, Albert (Honorable Ben Leutwyler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA373" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of August 21, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss the charges for violating his right to be free from double jeopardy. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before December 8, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA373.pdf">Opinion issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA421');"><img id="icon_20SA421" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA421 In Re People v Coleman, Eric (Honorable Kenneth Laff)" /></a>
-			20SA421 In Re People v Coleman, Eric (Honorable Kenneth Laff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA421" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 7, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant&rsquo;s sentence was illegal. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA421.pdf">Opinion Issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA422');"><img id="icon_20SA422" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA422 In Re People v Rainey, Jaylen (Honorable Edward Bronfin)" /></a>
-			20SA422 In Re People v Rainey, Jaylen (Honorable Edward Bronfin)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA422" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 13, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant&rsquo;s sentence was illegal. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA422.pdf">Opinion issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA423');"><img id="icon_20SA423" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA423 In Re People v Keen, Patrick (Honorable Alex Martinez)" /></a>
-			20SA423 In Re People v Keen, Patrick (Honorable Alex Martinez)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA423" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 9, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On December 24, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant&rsquo;s sentence was illegal. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA423.pdf">Opinion issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA240');"><img id="icon_20SA240" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA240 In Re People v Vigil, Delbert (Honorable Eric White)" /></a>
-			20SA240 In Re People v Vigil, Delbert (Honorable Eric White)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA240" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 15, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On July 17, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in binding over the charge of first-degree assault and concluding that probable cause existed that the petitioner inflicted serious bodily injury.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 17, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA240.pdf">Opinion issued June 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA322');"><img id="icon_20SA322" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA322 In Re People v. Hernandez, Juan (Hon. Crespin, Tomee)" /></a>
-			20SA322 In Re People v. Hernandez, Juan (Hon. Crespin, Tomee)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA322" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 16, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the People&rsquo;s motion to proceed via video testimony. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA322.pdf">Opinion Issued on June 7, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA79');"><img id="icon_21SA79" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA79, In Re People v Brown, George (Honorable Reed Owens)" /></a>
-			21SA79, In Re People v Brown, George (Honorable Reed Owens)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA79" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of January 7, 2021, and January 11, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On March 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in declaring a mistrial rather than dismissing the case for violation of the petitioner&rsquo;s speedy trial rights. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 8, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/21SA79%20ORDER.pdf">Court order issued May 27, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA324');"><img id="icon_20SA324" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA324 In Re People v. Nunez (Hon. Spear, Michael)" /></a>
-			20SA324 In Re People v. Nunez (Hon. Spear, Michael)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA324" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 29, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory right to speedy trial. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 19, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA324.pdf">Opinion issued on May 17, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA86');"><img id="icon_21SA86" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA86 In Re Castelan Rizo, Rigoberto v Rodriguez San Miguel, Jose (Honorable Michael Martinez)" /></a>
-			21SA86 In Re Castelan Rizo, Rigoberto v Rodriguez San Miguel, Jose (Honorable Michael Martinez)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA86" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of February 8, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On March 15, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondent&rsquo;s motion to strike testimony of the petitioner&rsquo;s treating physician. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 12, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2021SA86.pdf">Court order issued May 13, 2021</a></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA293');"><img id="icon_20SA293" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA293 In Re People v Moore, Aundre (Honorable Edward Bronfin)" /></a>
-			20SA293 In Re People v Moore, Aundre (Honorable Edward Bronfin)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA293" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 31, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 2, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the prosecution&rsquo;s motion to exclude evidence in the absence of an insanity plea.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 2, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA293.pdf">Opinion issued May 3, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA2');"><img id="icon_21SA2" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA2 In Re Lopez-Morales Francisco v Chavez, Eliana (Honorable Rayna McIntyre)" /></a>
-			21SA2 In Re Lopez-Morales Francisco v Chavez, Eliana (Honorable Rayna McIntyre)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA2" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of December 14, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant&rsquo;s motion to quash service. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2021SA2.pdf">Court order issued April 29, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA33');"><img id="icon_21SA33" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA33 In Re People v Sandoval, Edward (Honorable David Goldberg)" /></a>
-			21SA33 In Re People v Sandoval, Edward (Honorable David Goldberg)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA33" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 15, 2021.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On February 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for State pay of expert witnesses and investigator. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 1, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/amended%20court%20order%2021SA33.pdf">Court order issued April 16, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('21SA26');"><img id="icon_21SA26" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 21SA26 In Re Henry, Kevin v Bank of New York (Honorable Timothy Schutz)" /></a>
-			21SA26 In Re Henry, Kevin v Bank of New York (Honorable Timothy Schutz)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_21SA26" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of June 10, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to certify its dismissal order as final and appealable under C.R.C.P. 54(b). &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 22, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/21SA26%20court%20order.pdf">Court order issued April 15, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA262');"><img id="icon_20SA262" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA262  In Re People v Subjack, David (Honorable Ramsey Lama)" /></a>
-			20SA262  In Re People v Subjack, David (Honorable Ramsey Lama)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA262" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 13, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On July 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 28, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA262.pdf">Opinion issued on February 8, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA283');"><img id="icon_20SA283" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA283 In Re People v Lynch, Darryl (Honorable Ramsey Lama)" /></a>
-			20SA283 In Re People v Lynch, Darryl (Honorable Ramsey Lama)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA283" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 13, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On August 14, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in vacating the magistrate&rsquo;s order and in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 11, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA262.pdf">Opinion issued February 8, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA321');"><img id="icon_20SA321" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA321, In Re Gallentine v. Polis (Hon. Brian R. Whitney)" /></a>
-			20SA321, In Re Gallentine v. Polis (Hon. Brian R. Whitney)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA321" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 7, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 16, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA321.pdf">Opinion Issued February 1, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA425');"><img id="icon_20SA425" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA425 In Re the People in the interest of Children and concerning C.L. & R.L.-M. (Honorable Carl McGuire)" /></a>
-			20SA425 In Re the People in the interest of Children and concerning C.L. & R.L.-M. (Honorable Carl McGuire)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA425" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of October 26, November 30, and December 9, 2020.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000">On December 31, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying a motion to terminate parental rights and instead allocating parental responsibilities to a foster parent. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2021.&nbsp; The petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</font></span></p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span new="" style="font-family:;" times=""><font color="#000000"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/20SA425%20court%20order.pdf">Court order issued January 19, 2021</a></font></span></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA313');"><img id="icon_20SA313" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA313 In Re Green, M.D., Melanie v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman)" /></a>
-			20SA313 In Re Green, M.D., Melanie v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA313" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 14, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for a protective order.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 6, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2020SA313.pdf">Court order issued January 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA331');"><img id="icon_20SA331" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA331 In Re Camp, Renee v Centura Health (Honorable Morris Hoffman)" /></a>
-			20SA331 In Re Camp, Renee v Centura Health (Honorable Morris Hoffman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA331" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 14, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion for a protective order. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2020SA331.pdf">Court order issued January 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA332');"><img id="icon_20SA332" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA332 In Re Sterner, Robert v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman)" /></a>
-			20SA332 In Re Sterner, Robert v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA332" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 14, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion for a protective order. &nbsp;The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2020SA332.pdf">Court order issued January 14, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA91');"><img id="icon_19SA91" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA91 In Re Wasulko, Todd v eRentpayment (Honorable Julie Field)" /></a>
-			19SA91 In Re Wasulko, Todd v eRentpayment (Honorable Julie Field)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2021<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA91" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Base Commerce LLC, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 30, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs&rsquo; motion to amend their complaint to add claims against the petitioner.&nbsp; The respondents&mdash;Ying Li, Rasheda Mayner, Manish Sing, and Todd Wasulko&mdash;are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/court%20order%2019SA91.pdf">Court order issued January 8, 2021</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA308');"><img id="icon_20SA308" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA308 In Re the Marriage of Ballinger, Terry and Ballinger, Jenna (Honorable Patrick Butler) " /></a>
-			20SA308 In Re the Marriage of Ballinger, Terry and Ballinger, Jenna (Honorable Patrick Butler) &nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA308" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of August 26, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for change of venue. &nbsp;The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 6, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2020SA308.pdf">Court order issued November 20, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA234');"><img id="icon_20SA234" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA234 In Re Suranyi, John v Watermark Harvard Square (Honorable Eric Johnson)" /></a>
-			20SA234 In Re Suranyi, John v Watermark Harvard Square (Honorable Eric Johnson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA234" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of June 22, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion for a protective order regarding discovery.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 5, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2020SA234.pdf">Court order issued October 2, 2020</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA178');"><img id="icon_20SA178" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA178  In Re Lucas, Donthe v People (Honorable Thomas Flesher)" /></a>
-			20SA178  In Re Lucas, Donthe v People (Honorable Thomas Flesher)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA178" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 11, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On May 19, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for an order requiring the Pueblo County Sheriff to keep consultant visits with the petitioner confidential.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before June 16, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2020SA178.pdf">Court order issued September 11, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA90');"><img id="icon_20SA90" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA90 In Re the People v. Brown, Daryll" /></a>
-			20SA90 In Re the People v. Brown, Daryll&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA90" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of March 5, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On March 13, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to recuse all judges from the First Judicial District.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 10, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/court%20order%2020SA90.pdf">Court order issued July 20, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA52');"><img id="icon_20SA52" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA52 In Re Gurung, Sir Maya v Kouao, Andoh (Honorable Andrew Macdonald)" /></a>
-			20SA52 In Re Gurung, Sir Maya v Kouao, Andoh (Honorable Andrew Macdonald)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA52" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of October 24, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner&rsquo;s direct negligence claims.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2020SA52.pdf">ORDER ISSUED JULY 6, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA120');"><img id="icon_20SA120" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA120 In Re People v. Lucy & People v. Meresa" /></a>
-			20SA120 In Re People v. Lucy & People v. Meresa&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA120" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the county court&#39;s orders of April 3, 2020 and April 6, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On April 7, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the county court did not err in continuing two trials past their speedy trial deadlines without clarifying whether the speedy trial statute would still apply.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before May 5, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA120.pdf">Opinion issued June 29, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA122');"><img id="icon_20SA122" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA122 In Re Bensman, Sarah v BL Restaurant (Honorable Kandace Cecilia Gerdes)" /></a>
-			20SA122 In Re Bensman, Sarah v BL Restaurant (Honorable Kandace Cecilia Gerdes)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA122" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of January 8, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On April 13, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) ordering the petitioner to produce allegedly privileged materials in discovery without first holding a hearing, and (2) denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to continue the trial.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before May 11, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2020SA122.pdf">ORDER ISSUED JUNE 18, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA56');"><img id="icon_20SA56" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA56 In Re People v Molina, Arturo (Honorable Kimberly Karn)" /></a>
-			20SA56 In Re People v Molina, Arturo (Honorable Kimberly Karn)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA56" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2020SA56.pdf">ORDER ISSUED JUNE 5, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA87');"><img id="icon_20SA87" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA87 - In Re the Marriage of Wollert, Heidi and Francis, Joseph" /></a>
-			20SA87 - In Re the Marriage of Wollert, Heidi and Francis, Joseph&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA87" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of February 12, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On March 12, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming a magistrate&rsquo;s decision to deny petitioner&rsquo;s motion to restrict parenting time without first holding a hearing.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA87.pdf">Opinion Issued June 1, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA31');"><img id="icon_20SA31" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA31  In Re People v Huckabay, Donald (Honorable Thomas Flescher)" /></a>
-			20SA31  In Re People v Huckabay, Donald (Honorable Thomas Flescher)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA31" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 6, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On February 10, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before March 9, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2020/20SA31.pdf">Opinion Issued May 18, 2020</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA188');"><img id="icon_19SA188" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA188  In Re Persichette, William v Owners Insurance (Honorable Shannon Lyons)" /></a>
-			19SA188  In Re Persichette, William v Owners Insurance (Honorable Shannon Lyons)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA188" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Owners Insurance Company, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of August 14, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On September 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to disqualify plaintiff&rsquo;s counsel.&nbsp; The respondent, William Persichette, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 4, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA188.pdf">Opinion Issued May 4, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA252');"><img id="icon_19SA252" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA252 In Re People v Degreat, Edward (Honorable Andrew Baum)" /></a>
-			19SA252 In Re People v Degreat, Edward (Honorable Andrew Baum)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA252" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of October 16, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On November 18, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for violation of his speedy trial rights.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 30, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA252.pdf">Opinon Issued April 13, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('20SA48');"><img id="icon_20SA48" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 20SA48  In Re People v Colunga-Gamez, Javier (Honorable William Robbins)" /></a>
-			20SA48  In Re People v Colunga-Gamez, Javier (Honorable William Robbins)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_20SA48" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 28, 2020.</p>
-
-<p>On February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 26, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2020SA48.pdf">Court Order March 30, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA242');"><img id="icon_19SA242" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA242 In Re People v Rosas, Paul (Honorable Andrew Baum)" /></a>
-			19SA242 In Re People v Rosas, Paul (Honorable Andrew Baum)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA242" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 12, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to strike a defense expert&rsquo;s psychiatric opinion for lack of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before December 11, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA242.pdf">Opinion Issued March 16, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA230');"><img id="icon_19SA230" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA230 In Re People v Vanness, Donald (Honorable William Herringer)" /></a>
-			19SA230 In Re People v Vanness, Donald (Honorable William Herringer)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA230" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of October 15, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On October 21, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s demand for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before November 18, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA230.pdf">Opinion Issued on March 2, 2020</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA118');"><img id="icon_19SA118" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA118 In Re Chessin, Paul v Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (Honorable Michael Martinez)" /></a>
-			19SA118 In Re Chessin, Paul v Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (Honorable Michael Martinez)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA118" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of May 10, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On June 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in granting the respondent&rsquo;s motion to hold the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss in abeyance, thereby requiring the petitioner to respond to a motion to disqualify.&nbsp; The respondent, Paul Chessin, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 8, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA118.pdf">Opinion February 10, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA234');"><img id="icon_19SA234" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA234 In Re People in the Interest of E.R.G. (Honorable Patrick Pugh)" /></a>
-			19SA234 In Re People in the Interest of E.R.G. (Honorable Patrick Pugh)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA234" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of June 11, 2019, and July 11, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On October 25, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in rescinding a protective order and later refusing to reinstate the order.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before November 22, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2019SA234.pdf">Court order issued February 3, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA129');"><img id="icon_19SA129" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA129  In Re Rademacher, Carol v. Greschler, Ira" /></a>
-			19SA129  In Re Rademacher, Carol v. Greschler, Ira&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA129" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On July 2, 2019, the supreme court issued an Order and Rule to Show Cause asking respondent, Ira Greschler, why the district court&#39;s order finding an implied&nbsp;waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to records of Shawn Ettingoff that materially relate to defendant&#39;s statute of limitations defense should not be vacated.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA129.pdf">Opinion Issued on January 13, 2020</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA191');"><img id="icon_19SA191" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA191 In Re People v Kilgore, Joshua (Honorable Suzanne Fairchild Carlson)" /></a>
-			19SA191 In Re People v Kilgore, Joshua (Honorable Suzanne Fairchild Carlson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA191" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of July 16, 2019; August 24, 2019; and September 3, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On September 12, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the defendant to provide the prosecution with copies of defense exhibits in advance of trial.&nbsp; The respondent, the Honorable Suzanne Fairchild Carlson, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 10, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA191.pdf">Opinion Issued on January 13, 2020</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA269');"><img id="icon_19SA269" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA269  In Re Haber, Laura v Travelers Casualty (Honorable Robert Lewis McGahey)" /></a>
-			19SA269  In Re Haber, Laura v Travelers Casualty (Honorable Robert Lewis McGahey)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2020<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA269" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 27, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to produce sealed records in response to a discovery request.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before January 7, 2020.&nbsp; The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 8, 2020 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2019SA269.pdf">Order 19SA269</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA151');"><img id="icon_19SA151" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA151 In Re The People in the interest of B.B.A.M. (Honorable Judith Goeke)" /></a>
-			19SA151 In Re The People in the interest of B.B.A.M. (Honorable Judith Goeke)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA151" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of July 3, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On July 31, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate&rsquo;s order requiring the juvenile to undergo a second competency evaluation.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 30, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA151.pdf">Opinion issued December 9, 2019</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA180');"><img id="icon_19SA180" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA180 In Re People v Rowell, James (Honorable Gregory M. Lammons)" /></a>
-			19SA180 In Re People v Rowell, James (Honorable Gregory M. Lammons)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA180" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, James Rowell, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 25, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On August 21, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 18, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA180.pdf">Opinion Issued on December 9, 2019</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA186');"><img id="icon_19SA186" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA186  In Re People v. Garcia-Gonzalez, Valeria (Honorable Brian Flynn)" /></a>
-			19SA186  In Re People v. Garcia-Gonzalez, Valeria (Honorable Brian Flynn)&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA186" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioner seeks relief from the trial court&#39;s order of March 5, 2019.&nbsp; On September 19, 2019, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in extending the petitioner&#39;s speedy trial period by six months.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2019.&nbsp; Petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>November 7, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20order%2019SA186.pdf">Court Order, November 7, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA116');"><img id="icon_19SA116" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA116 In Re Hernandez, Priscilla v Sisneros, Levi (Honorable Edward Moss)" /></a>
-			19SA116 In Re Hernandez, Priscilla v Sisneros, Levi (Honorable Edward Moss)&nbsp;&nbsp;Aug 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA116" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Priscilla Hernandez and the Estate of Alfredo George Hernandez-Chavez, seek relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of April 3, 2019, and April 15, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On June 6, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) denying petitioners&rsquo; motion to reconsider its earlier dismissal of defendant Levi Sisneros, and (2) denying petitioners&rsquo; C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion requesting relief from that prior order.&nbsp; The respondent, Honorable Edward Charles Moss, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 8, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply</p>
-
-<p>On August 30, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2019SA116.pdf">Court Order , August 30, 2019</a>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA101');"><img id="icon_19SA101" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA101 In Re the Matter of the Estate of Moore, Michael (Honorable Harold Hurst)" /></a>
-			19SA101 In Re the Matter of the Estate of Moore, Michael (Honorable Harold Hurst)&nbsp;&nbsp;Aug 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA101" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Jennifer McGinn, seeks relief from the magistrate&rsquo;s order of January 31, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On May 22, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the magistrate did not err in issuing its Order Compelling Disclosures.&nbsp; The respondents&mdash;Chase Channing Moore, Kristian Collin Moore, and Kimberly Kalan, Guardian and Conservator for Sydney Camilla Moore, Sophie Lynn Moore, Ellie Marie Moore, and Amy Alissa Moore&mdash;are directed to file a written answer on or before June 19, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 28 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following Order on August 28, 2019:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2019SA101.pdf">Order 19SA101</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA284');"><img id="icon_18SA284" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA284 In Re In the Matter of the Estate of Feldman, Stacy (Honorable Elizabeth Leith)" /></a>
-			18SA284 In Re In the Matter of the Estate of Feldman, Stacy (Honorable Elizabeth Leith)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA284" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Robert Feldman and Haddon, Morgan &amp; Foreman, P.C., seek relief from the probate court&rsquo;s order of November 9, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On December 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the probate court did not err in ruling that funds contained in defense counsel&rsquo;s COLTAF account must remain frozen.&nbsp; The respondents, Special Administrator Melissa R. Schwartz and Elizabeth Greenberg, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 10, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following opinion on June 24, 2019:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA284.pdf">Opinion June 24, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA22');"><img id="icon_19SA22" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA22 In Re N.A. Rugby v Rugby International (Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill)" /></a>
-			19SA22 In Re N.A. Rugby v Rugby International (Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA22" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Rugby International Marketing LLC, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of January 28, 2019.</p>
-
-<p>On February 11, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in staying the case and compelling the petitioner to attend arbitration.&nbsp; The respondents, N.A. Rugby Union LLC and Douglas Schoninger, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 13, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 17, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2019/19SA22.pdf">Opinion issued June 17, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA221');"><img id="icon_18SA221" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA221 In Re People in the interest of T.T. (Honorable Theresa Slade)" /></a>
-			18SA221 In Re People in the interest of T.T. (Honorable Theresa Slade)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA221" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, T.T., seeks relief from the district court&#39;s order of May 10, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On September 20, 2018, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in declining to answer the petitioner&#39;s Petition for Certificate of Compliance.&nbsp; The respondents -- Christopher Ryan, State Court Administrator; Shannon Kloek, Clerk of the Arapahoe County Court; and the Honorable Theresa Slade -- are directed to file a written answer on or before October 22, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the ansewr within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 17, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA221.pdf">Opinion Issued June 17, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA237');"><img id="icon_18SA237" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA237 In Re the People v. Brown, David (Honorable Kenneth Laff)" /></a>
-			18SA237 In Re the People v. Brown, David (Honorable Kenneth Laff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA237" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Brandon D. Brown, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of September 8, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motion for Protective Order.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 26, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 10, 2019 the Court issued the following Opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA237.pdf">Opinion Issued June 10, 2019</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA228');"><img id="icon_18SA228" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA228  In Re Reeves-Toney v. School District No. 1 (Honorable J. Eric Elliff)" /></a>
-			18SA228  In Re Reeves-Toney v. School District No. 1 (Honorable J. Eric Elliff)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA228" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver (&ldquo;DPS&rdquo;), seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of July 17, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On September 13, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss.&nbsp; The respondent, Rebecca Reeves-Toney, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 15, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following opinion on May 28, 2019:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA228.pdf">Opinion May 28, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA257');"><img id="icon_18SA257" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA257 In Re People v Roina, Benjamin (Honorable Gregory R. Werner)" /></a>
-			18SA257 In Re People v Roina, Benjamin (Honorable Gregory R. Werner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA257" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Benjamin Roina, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of September 7, 2018, and October 12, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring defense counsel to release to the prosecution certain information contained in its Ex Parte Sealed Motion Raising Competency of the Defendant, and in subsequently denying defense counsel&rsquo;s Motion to Reconsider regarding that order.&nbsp; The respondent, the Honorable Gregory R. Werner, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 28, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On March 25, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA257.pdf">Opinion issued March 25, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA32');"><img id="icon_19SA32" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA32 In Re the Marriage of Stroden (Honorable Charles M. Pratt)" /></a>
-			19SA32 In Re the Marriage of Stroden (Honorable Charles M. Pratt)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA32" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On March 13, 2019 the Court issued the following order GRANTING the petition and making the RULE ABSOLUTE:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2019SA32.pdf">Order 19SA32</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('19SA3');"><img id="icon_19SA3" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 19SA3 In Re Prout, Vickie v Mansfield, Ryan (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl)" /></a>
-			19SA3 In Re Prout, Vickie v Mansfield, Ryan (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_19SA3" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Ryan E. Mansfield, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 19, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On January 9, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in requiring the petitioner to disclose his medical records relating to his treatment for keratoconus.&nbsp; The respondent, Vickie J. Prout, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2019.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On March 7, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2019SA3.pdf">Order 19SA3</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA224');"><img id="icon_18SA224" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA224 In Re People v Tafoya, Elizabeth (Honorable Gretchen Larson)" /></a>
-			18SA224 In Re People v Tafoya, Elizabeth (Honorable Gretchen Larson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA224" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Elizabeth Renee Tafoya, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of May 31, 2018</p>
-
-<p>On September 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s request for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 11, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 19, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA224.pdf">Opinion issued February 19, 2019</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA127');"><img id="icon_18SA127" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA127 In Re Accetta, Anthony v Brooks Towers (Honorable J. Eric Elliff)" /></a>
-			18SA127 In Re Accetta, Anthony v Brooks Towers (Honorable J. Eric Elliff)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA127" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Anthony T. Accetta, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 23, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On May 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to join all individual unit owners as indispensable parties.&nbsp; The respondents&mdash; Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Association, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and Mark Trenka, Marla Grant, Bill Clarke, Clay Courter, Robb Green, Alton Darby, Joan Foster, and Jeanne Root, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Directors of the Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Association, Inc.&mdash;are directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 11, 2019 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA127.pdf">Opinion February 11, 2019</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA261');"><img id="icon_18SA261" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA261 In Re Department of Revenue v Easdon" /></a>
-			18SA261 In Re Department of Revenue v Easdon&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA261" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Jonathan Easdon, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s actions of July 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On November 7, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to hold a hearing on the distraint warrant issued against the petitioner.&nbsp; The respondents, the Colorado Department of Revenue and the El Paso County District Court, are directed to file a written answer on or before November 30, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 31, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2018SA261.pdf">ORDER 18SA261</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA245');"><img id="icon_18SA245" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA245 In Re People v. Tarnowski, Adam (Honorable David John Stevens)" /></a>
-			18SA245 In Re People v. Tarnowski, Adam (Honorable David John Stevens)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA245" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the 18th Judicial District Probation Department, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of September 11, 2018, and September 20, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On October 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motion for Reconsideration regarding that denial.&nbsp; The respondent, Adam Howard Tarnowski, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 5, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 17, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2018SA245.pdf">ORDER 18SA245</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA272');"><img id="icon_18SA272" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA272 In Re People v. Eberly, Kelley (Honorable Russell Granger)" /></a>
-			18SA272 In Re People v. Eberly, Kelley (Honorable Russell Granger)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2019<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA272" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Kelley William Eberly, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of October 1, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in ruling that the petitioner could be tried for felony indecent exposure.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 12, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 10, 2019 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2018SA272.pdf">ORDER 18SA272</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA92');"><img id="icon_18SA92" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA92 In Re Fox, Kayla v Alfini William (Honorable Lance Timbreza)" /></a>
-			18SA92 In Re Fox, Kayla v Alfini William (Honorable Lance Timbreza)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA92" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Kayla Fox, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of November 16, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the Defendants&rsquo; Joint Motion to Compel Recorded Witness Statements.&nbsp; The respondents, William Alfini Jr. and Brady Chiropractic Group P.C., are directed to file a written answer on or before May 21, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On December 3, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA92.pdf">Opinion December 3, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA135');"><img id="icon_18SA135" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA135 In Re Schultz, Charissa v Geico (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow)" /></a>
-			18SA135 In Re Schultz, Charissa v Geico (Honorable Marcelo Kopcow)&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA135" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Charissa Schultz, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of April 24, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On May 25, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to submit to a physical examination under C.R.C.P. 35.&nbsp; The respondent, Geico Casualty Company, is directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On November 5, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA135.pdf">Opinion November 5, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA166');"><img id="icon_18SA166" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA166  In Re Wells, Marion v Public Service (Honorable John F. Neiley)" /></a>
-			18SA166  In Re Wells, Marion v Public Service (Honorable John F. Neiley)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA166" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Marion J. Wells, as personal representative of the Estate of Wayne E. Wells, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of June 1, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On July 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the Plaintiffs&rsquo; Motion for Entry of Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Defendant&rsquo;s Counterclaim for Petition in Condemnation.&nbsp; The respondent, Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 6, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 12, 2018 the court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/18SA166.pdf">ORDER 18SA166</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA181');"><img id="icon_18SA181" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA181 In Re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt)" /></a>
-			18SA181 In Re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA181" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Jack J. Grynberg, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of May 29, 2018, and July 23, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On August 16, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1)&nbsp;partially granting the plaintiffs&rsquo; Motion for Release of Medical Records, and (2)&nbsp;denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony.&nbsp; The respondents&mdash; Gadeco LLC; Celeste C. Grynberg, individually and as Co-Trustee for the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust, the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust, and the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust; the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust; the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; Pricaspian Development Corporation; Rachel S Grynberg; Miriam Z. Grynberg; Stephen M. Grynberg, individually and as Trustee for Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust; and the Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust&mdash;are directed to file a written answer on or before September 5, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 12, 2018 the court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/18SA181.pdf">ORDER 18SA181</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA87');"><img id="icon_18SA87" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA87 In Re People v Kitzmiller (Honorable Michael Davidson)" /></a>
-			18SA87 In Re People v Kitzmiller (Honorable Michael Davidson)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA87" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Krista Gaile Kitzmiller, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order of March 23, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On June 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant&rsquo;s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Preliminary Hearing.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 20, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On July 25, 2018 the court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Court%20Order%2018SA87.pdf">ORDER 18SA87</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA248');"><img id="icon_17SA248" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA248 In Re Rain, Wilson v Barber, Douglas" /></a>
-			17SA248 In Re Rain, Wilson v Barber, Douglas&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA248" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Douglas H. Barber, personal representative of the Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona; The Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona, a/k/a Oliver E. Frascona, a/k/a Oliver Frascona; Joseph B. Lechtanski; and The Real Estate School, a Colorado LLC, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of August 2, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On September 29, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Plaintiffs&rsquo; Post-Judgment Motion for New Trial.&nbsp; The respondents, Bjorn John Wedan, natural father and heir of Austin Wedan, Hunter Wedan and Mason Wedan, deceased; and Wilson Henry Rains, natural father and heir of Tori Rains-Wedan, deceased, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 30, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioners have 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 15, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA248.pdf">Opinion June 25, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA26');"><img id="icon_18SA26" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA26 - In Re People v Stackhouse, James (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)" /></a>
-			18SA26 - In Re People v Stackhouse, James (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA26" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s rulings of December 19, 2017, and January 26, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in granting the defendant&rsquo;s Motion to Compel the Prosecution to Elect the January 2007 Allegation as Its Sole Basis for Proceeding.&nbsp; The respondent, James Robert Stackhouse, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 22, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On Monday, June 18, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA26.pdf">Opinion June 18, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA19');"><img id="icon_18SA19" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA19 - In Re People v Owens, Sir Mario (Honorable Christopher Munch)" /></a>
-			18SA19 - In Re People v Owens, Sir Mario (Honorable Christopher Munch)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA19" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the Colorado Independent, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s rulings of January 12, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>On February 8, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) denying in part the petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Unseal Judicial Records in the Court File, and (2) granting the People&rsquo;s Motion to Seal/Suppress.&nbsp; The respondent, the Honorable Christopher J. Munch, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 12, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 11, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA19.pdf">Opinion June 11, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA113');"><img id="icon_17SA113" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA113 In Re People v. Shank, Alyse" /></a>
-			17SA113 In Re People v. Shank, Alyse&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA113" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of April 10, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On June 15, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Strike and Motion to Remove Public Defender from the Case.&nbsp; The respondent, Alyse Elaine Shank, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 17, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 11, 2018 the Court issued the following Opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA113.pdf">Opinion June 11, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA1');"><img id="icon_18SA1" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA1 In Re People v. Austin, Ilyias   (Honorable Thomas Quammen)" /></a>
-			18SA1 In Re People v. Austin, Ilyias   (Honorable Thomas Quammen)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA1" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Ilyias Calese Austin, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of November 13, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On January 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in denying Austin&rsquo;s motion for a preliminary hearing.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 35 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following opinion on June 4, 2018:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA1.pdf">Opinion June 4, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA299');"><img id="icon_17SA299" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA299 In Re State Farm v. Goddard, Susan (Honorable Fredrick Michael Goodbee)" /></a>
-			17SA299 In Re State Farm v. Goddard, Susan (Honorable Fredrick Michael Goodbee)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA299" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s ruling of November 17, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On January 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in ruling that State Farm&rsquo;s counsel had impliedly waived attorney-client privilege.&nbsp; The respondent, Susan A. Goddard, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 5, 2018.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 4, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion;</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA299.pdf">Opinion June 4, 2018</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA247');"><img id="icon_17SA247" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA247 In re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt)" /></a>
-			17SA247 In re: Gadeco, LLC v. Grynberg, Jack ( Honorable Charles M. Pratt)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA247" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Jack J. Grynberg and The Grynberg Petroleum Corporation, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of October 10, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendants&rsquo; Objection to Special Master Order #25.&nbsp; The respondents&mdash;Gadeco LLC; Celeste C. Grynberg, individually and as Co-Trustee for the Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust, the Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust, and the Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; The Rachel Susan Grynberg 1982 Trust; The Stephen Mark Grynberg 1983 Trust; The Miriam Zela Grynberg 1986 Trust; Pricaspian Development Corporation; Rachel S Grynberg; Miriam Z. Grynberg; Stephen M. Grynberg, individually and as Trustee for Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust; and The Stephen Mark Grynberg Separate Property Trust&mdash;are directed to file a written answer on or before November 20, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioners have 21 days within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA247.pdf">OPINION 17SA247</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('18SA33');"><img id="icon_18SA33" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 18SA33 - In re Galloway, Glen v People (Honorable Gregory Werner)" /></a>
-			18SA33 - In re Galloway, Glen v People (Honorable Gregory Werner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_18SA33" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner seeks relief from the district court&#39;s order of February 7, 2018.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following order on March 5, 2018:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/18SA33.pdf">18SA33 ORDER</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA20');"><img id="icon_17SA20" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA20 In re Bailey, Kelley v Hermacinski, M.D., Mark (Honorable Thomas Ossola)" /></a>
-			17SA20 In re Bailey, Kelley v Hermacinski, M.D., Mark (Honorable Thomas Ossola)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA20" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Kelley Bailey and Michael Bailey, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of January 11, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On February 9, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in authorizing the Respondents to conduct ex parte interviews with eight of Kelley Bailey&#39;s subsequent treating physicians.&nbsp; The respondents, Mark Hermacinski, M.D., Leslie Ahlmeyer, M.D., Mary Bowman, M.D. and Yampa Valley Medical Center, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 13, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioners have 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued an opinion on March 5, 2018, Rule Made Absolute:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA20.pdf">OPINION 17SA20</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA277');"><img id="icon_17SA277" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA277 In re: People v Schreiber, Marliese (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)" /></a>
-			17SA277 In re: People v Schreiber, Marliese (Honorable Robert Kiesnowski)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA277" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>On November 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the People&rsquo;s Motion to Continue Jury Trial and denying Schreiber&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Right to Speedy Trial.&nbsp; The respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 22, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply</p>
-
-<p>On February 26, 2018 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/17SA277.pdf">ORDER</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA224');"><img id="icon_16SA224" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA224 In re:  2015-2016 Jefferson County Grand Jury" /></a>
-			16SA224 In re:  2015-2016 Jefferson County Grand Jury&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA224" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Michael Jamal Whitney and Amy Brimah, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of July 19, 22 and August 12, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On September 2, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner&rsquo;s Motions to Quash.&nbsp; The respondent, The People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 3, 2016.&nbsp; The petitioners have 20 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 5, 2018 the Court issued the following opinion:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA224.pdf">OPINION 16SA224</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA255');"><img id="icon_17SA255" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA255 In re: Leal, Leonard v Farell, Natalie (Honorable Edward David Bronfin)" /></a>
-			17SA255 In re: Leal, Leonard v Farell, Natalie (Honorable Edward David Bronfin)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2018<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA255" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Natalie Farell, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of August 8, 2017, and October 19, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On October 23, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in authorizing substituted service under C.R.C.P. 4(f).&nbsp; The respondent, Leonard M. Leal, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 22, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 2, 2018 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following order on February 2, 2018:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/17SA255.pdf">ORDER 17SA255</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA134');"><img id="icon_17SA134" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA134 In re Tumpkin v. Broomfield County Court" /></a>
-			17SA134 In re Tumpkin v. Broomfield County Court&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA134" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, the Broomfield County Court and the Honorable Amy Bockman, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of June 15, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the district court erred in denying the County Court&rsquo;s Motion in Limine.&nbsp; The respondent, Joseph Tumpkin, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 10, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/17SA134.pdf">Order of Court - December 7, 2017</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA62');"><img id="icon_17SA62" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA62 - In re Catholic Health Initiatives v Earl Swensson Associates (Honorable Edward Moss)" /></a>
-			17SA62 - In re Catholic Health Initiatives v Earl Swensson Associates (Honorable Edward Moss)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA62" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Catholic Health Initiatives of Colorado, Inc., seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of March 23, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On March 31, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Motion to Strike Expert Testimony by Bruce LePage.&nbsp; The respondent, Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., is directed to file a written answer on or before May 1, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 2, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA62.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2017/17SA62.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA230');"><img id="icon_16SA230" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA230 In re Ryan Frazier v. Wayne Williams (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs)" /></a>
-			16SA230 In re Ryan Frazier v. Wayne Williams (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA230" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioner, Wayne Williams, in his official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s August 3, 2016 order.</p>
-
-<p>On August 12, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred by awarding attorney&rsquo;s fees to Ryan Frazier.&nbsp; The respondent, Ryan Frazier, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 12, 2016.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On September 11, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA230.pdf">16SA230 opinion.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA212');"><img id="icon_16SA212" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA212 In re Villas at Highland Park v. Dale Francescon (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl)" /></a>
-			16SA212 In re Villas at Highland Park v. Dale Francescon (Honorable Elizabeth Weishaupl)&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA212" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioners, Dale Francescon, CC Communities, LLC, Century Communities, Inc., and Horizon Building Services, LLC seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s February 25, 2016 order.</p>
-
-<p>On August 12, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioners&rsquo; Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff&rsquo;s Counsel.&nbsp; The respondent, Mari K. Perczak, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 12, 2016.&nbsp; The petitioners&rsquo; have 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On May 22, 2017 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute. The opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA212.pdf">16SA212 opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA324');"><img id="icon_16SA324" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA324 In re Clean Energy v Borrego Solar" /></a>
-			16SA324 In re Clean Energy v Borrego Solar&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA324" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Borrego Solar Systems Inc., seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of December 13, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On January 3, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering that the petitioner, a non-resident California corporation, was subject to general personal jurisdiction.&nbsp; The respondent, Clean Energy Collective LLC, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 2, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On April 17, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. The opinion can be found:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA324.pdf">16SA324 Opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA340');"><img id="icon_15SA340" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA340 - In re Ferrer, Jessica v  Okbamicael, Tesfamariam  (Honorable Andrew McCallin)" /></a>
-			15SA340 - In re Ferrer, Jessica v  Okbamicael, Tesfamariam  (Honorable Andrew McCallin)&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA340" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Jessica Ferrer and Kathryn Winslow, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of March 6, March 24, October 23 and December 9, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On January 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners&rsquo; direct negligence claims, denying their motion to add a claim for exemplary damages, and denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion to compel production of records. The Respondents, Tesfamariam Okbamicael and Colorado Cab Company, LLC, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 27, 2016; Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 27, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, on March 27, 2017 the court issued a modified opinion: The modified opinion can be found:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA340.pdf">15SA340 modified opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA17');"><img id="icon_17SA17" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA17 In re The People v Guzman-Rincon, Luis" /></a>
-			17SA17 In re The People v Guzman-Rincon, Luis&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA17" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of January 30, 2017.</p>
-
-<p>On January 31, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering that the petitioner was precluded from using prior testimony pursuant to C.R.E. 804.&nbsp; The respondent, the Honorable Peter F. Michaelson, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 21, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioner has 20 days within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/17SA17.pdf">Court order dated March 24, 2017.</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA193');"><img id="icon_16SA193" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA193 - In re Richard Goodman v Heritage Builders (Honorable Christopher G. Seldin)" /></a>
-			16SA193 - In re Richard Goodman v Heritage Builders (Honorable Christopher G. Seldin)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA193" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Heritage Builders, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of May 20, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On July 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting Bluegreen Inc. and Scott A. Lindenau Architect P.C. d/b/a Studio B. Architects motion for summary judgment. The Respondents, Bluegreen Inc. and Scott A. Lindenau Architect P.C. d/b/a Studio B. Architects, are directed to file a written answer on or before August 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 27, 2017 the Court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA193.pdf">16SA193 opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA199');"><img id="icon_16SA199" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA199 - In re the marriage of Lisa Gromicko and Nickifor Gromicko (Honorable Bruce Langer)" /></a>
-			16SA199 - In re the marriage of Lisa Gromicko and Nickifor Gromicko (Honorable Bruce Langer)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2017<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA199" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, International Association of Certified Home Inspectors, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of May 2, and June 15, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On July 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying International Association of Certified Home Inspectors&rsquo; Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for ruling on Privilege Claims Raised in the Motion to Quash . The Respondent, Lisa Dawn Gromicko, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 9, 2017 the Court issued an opinion, rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA199.pdf">16SA199 opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA38');"><img id="icon_16SA38" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA38 - In re Rumnock, Stephen v American Family (Honorable A. Bruce Jones)" /></a>
-			16SA38 - In re Rumnock, Stephen v American Family (Honorable A. Bruce Jones)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA38" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of December 4, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On February 11, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting in part and denying in part American Family&rsquo;s Motion for Protective Order. The Respondent, Stephen Rumnock, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 14, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On December 5, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA38.pdf">16SA38 opinion</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA234');"><img id="icon_16SA234" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA234 - In re the Marriage of Hokanson (Honorable Valerie Robison)" /></a>
-			16SA234 - In re the Marriage of Hokanson (Honorable Valerie Robison)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA234" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Edward William Hokanson, III, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s July 20, 2016 order.</p>
-
-<p>On August 19, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.&nbsp; The respondent, Tracy Hokanson, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 19, 2016.&nbsp; The petitioner has 30 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Court issued the following order on October 27, 2016: <a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/16SA234.pdf">Court Order</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA275');"><img id="icon_16SA275" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA275 In re Gagne, Richard v. Gagne, Paula" /></a>
-			16SA275 In re Gagne, Richard v. Gagne, Paula&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA275" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Paula Gagne, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of September 7, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On October 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering a dissolution and in-kind distribution of assets of four separate LLCs.&nbsp; The respondent, Richard Gagne, is directed to file a written answer on or before November 7, 2016.&nbsp; The petitioner has 20 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 27, 2016 the Court issued the following order: &nbsp;<a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/16SA275.pdf">Court Order</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA94');"><img id="icon_16SA94" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA94  In re:  People v. Higgins, Brooke (Hon. Paul A. King)" /></a>
-			16SA94  In re:  People v. Higgins, Brooke (Hon. Paul A. King)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA94" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Brooke Ann Higgins, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of March 4, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in declining to suppress a psychological examination conducted pursuant to a magistrate&rsquo;s order. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, are directed to file a written answer on or before April 13, 2016; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 3, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Vacate the Order to Show Cause and Remand for Further Proceedings:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA94.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA94.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA96');"><img id="icon_16SA96" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA96  In re:  People v. Johnson, Sienna (Hon. Paul A. King)" /></a>
-			16SA96  In re:  People v. Johnson, Sienna (Hon. Paul A. King)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA96" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Sienna Johnson, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of February 12, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in determining that the petitioner waived all privilege to her mental health records by disputing the adult, district court jurisdiction through a reverse-transfer hearing and by requiring the petitioner to submit to a an involuntary psychological examination by a state doctor . The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, are directed to file a written answer on or before April 13, 2016; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 3, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA96.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA96.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA114');"><img id="icon_16SA114" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA114 In re:  Griffith, Christine v SSC Pueblo Belmont (Honorable Jill S. Matoon)" /></a>
-			16SA114 In re:  Griffith, Christine v SSC Pueblo Belmont (Honorable Jill S. Matoon)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA114" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, SSC Special Holdings LLC; SavaSeniorCare LLC; Svcare Holdings LLC; Canyon Sudar Partners LLC; Special Holdings Parent Holdco LLC; Proto Equity Holdings LLC; and Terpax Inc., seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of March 1, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying SSC Special Holdings LLC; SavaSeniorCare LLC; Svcare Holdings LLC; Canyon Sudar Partners LLC; Special Holdings Parent Holdco LLC; Proto Equity Holdings LLC; and Terpax Inc.&rsquo;s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Christine Griffith, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Antonio Jimenez, Jr., is directed to file a written answer on or before May 16, 2016; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:</p>
-
-<p>https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA114.pdf</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA124');"><img id="icon_16SA124" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA124 In re Meeks, Khalid v SSC Colorado Springs (Honorable Thomas Kelly Kane)" /></a>
-			16SA124 In re Meeks, Khalid v SSC Colorado Springs (Honorable Thomas Kelly Kane)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA124" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Colorado Holdco LLC, SSC Equity Holdings LLC, SavaSeniorCare LLC, Master Tenant Parent Holdco LLC, Proto Equity Holdings LLC, and Terpax Inc., seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of March 1, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying Colorado Holdco LLC, SSC Equity Holdings LLC, SavaSeniorCare LLC, Master Tenant Parent Holdco LLC, Proto Equity Holdings LLC, and Terpax Inc&rsquo;s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Khalid Meeks, is directed to file a written answer on or before May 16, 2016; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:</p>
-
-<p>https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA124.pdf</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA75');"><img id="icon_16SA75" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA75 - In re Dept. of Transportation v Amerco Real Estate (Honorable Christopher Munch)" /></a>
-			16SA75 - In re Dept. of Transportation v Amerco Real Estate (Honorable Christopher Munch)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA75" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Amerco Real Estate Company and U-Haul Company of Colorado, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of February 22, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On March 3, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Department of Transportation&rsquo;s petition for immediate possession and denying Amerco Real Estate Company and U-Haul Company of Colorado&rsquo;s motion to dismiss. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before March 23, 2016; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On September 26, 2016 the Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute:</p>
-
-<p>https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA75.pdf</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA332');"><img id="icon_15SA332" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA332 - In re: Magill, John v Ford Motor (Honorable Michael Vallejos)" /></a>
-			15SA332 - In re: Magill, John v Ford Motor (Honorable Michael Vallejos)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA332" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Ford Motor Company, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of November 9 and December 1, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On January 7, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative, for a change of venue . The Respondents, John Magill and Suzanna Magill, are directed to file a written answer on or before February 8, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA332.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA332.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA268');"><img id="icon_13SA268" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA268 - In Re People v Roberson (Honorable J. Richard Caschette)" /></a>
-			13SA268 - In Re People v Roberson (Honorable J. Richard Caschette)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA268" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In re:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Bryan Roberson</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district order denying revocation of probation.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On October 24, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Bryan Roberson is directed to file a written answer on or before November 25, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA268.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA268.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA8');"><img id="icon_16SA8" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA8 - State of Colorado v The Castle Law Group (Honorable Morris Hoffman)" /></a>
-			16SA8 - State of Colorado v The Castle Law Group (Honorable Morris Hoffman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA8" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of January 7 and January 11, 2016</p>
-
-<p>On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in limiting testimony to be offered at trial. The Respondents, the Castle Law Group, LLC; Absolute Posting &amp; Process Services, LLC; RE Records Research, LLC, d/b/a Real Estate Records Research; Colorado American Title, LLC; Lawrence E. Castle; Caren A. Castle; Ryan J. O&#39;Connell; and Kathleen A. Benton, are directed to file a written answer on or before February 15, 2016; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA8.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SA8.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA35');"><img id="icon_14SA35" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA35  In Re People v. Elmarr, Sr. (Honorable Patrick Butler)" /></a>
-			14SA35  In Re People v. Elmarr, Sr. (Honorable Patrick Butler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA35" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>In re:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Kevin Elmarr, Sr.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court Order of January 31, 2014.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On February 6, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in admitting alternative suspect evidence when it failed to explicitly determine that the specific evidence was also admissible under the Colorado Rules of Evidence. Respondent Kevin F. Elmarr, Sr., is directed to file a written answer on or before March 10, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA35.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA35.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA165');"><img id="icon_15SA165" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA165 In Re People v Chavez, Saul (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs)" /></a>
-			15SA165 In Re People v Chavez, Saul (Honorable Elizabeth Starrs)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA165" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of March 9 and March 19, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On June 17, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendant&rsquo;s Motion for Discovery. The Respondent, Saul Chavez, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 17, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA165.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA165.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('16SA13');"><img id="icon_16SA13" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 16SA13 - In re People v Dear, Roberts (Honorable Gilbert Martinez)" /></a>
-			16SA13 - In re People v Dear, Roberts (Honorable Gilbert Martinez)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_16SA13" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, news media organizations, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of December 30, 2016</p>
-
-<p>On January 27, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the petitioners&rsquo; motion to unseal portions of affidavits of probable cause supporting the arrest and search of the residence of the defendant, Robert Lewis Dear, in the case below. The Respondent, Hon Gilbert Anthony Martinez, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 16, 2016; Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>The Rule to Show Cause and the above-captioned matter were DISMISSED by court ordered dated April 8, 2016.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA151');"><img id="icon_15SA151" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA151 In re P.W. v Children’s Hospital" /></a>
-			15SA151 In re P.W. v Children’s Hospital&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2016<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA151" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Children&rsquo;s Hospital Colorado, Children&rsquo;s Hospital Colorado Health System, The Children&rsquo;s Hospital Association, d/b/a The Children&rsquo;s Hospital Corporation, d/b/a The Children&rsquo;s Hospital of Colorado seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of April 14, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On June 11, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in precluding discovery of certain records and granting respondent&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss Defendant&rsquo;s Affirmative Defense of Comparative Negligence. The Respondent, P.W., is directed to file a written answer on or before July 13, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA151.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA151.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA22');"><img id="icon_15SA22" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA22 In Re Dwyer, Lindi v. State of Colorado (Honorable Herbert Stern, III)" /></a>
-			15SA22 In Re Dwyer, Lindi v. State of Colorado (Honorable Herbert Stern, III)&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA22" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, the State of Colorado, Robert Hammond, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education of the State of Colorado, and John Hickenlooper, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado, seek relief from the district court Order of November 12, 2014.</p>
-
-<p>On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying the Petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss Respondents&rsquo; Complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim for relief. The Respondents, Linda and Paul Dwyer, et al., are directed to file a written answer on or before March 9, 2015; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA22.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SA22.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA93');"><img id="icon_15SA93" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA93 In Re People v Medlock, Ryan  (Honorable David L. Shakes)" /></a>
-			15SA93 In Re People v Medlock, Ryan  (Honorable David L. Shakes)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA93" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Ryan James Medlock, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Orders of February 6, 2015.</p>
-
-<p>On April 6, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to reconsider and ordering the petitioner held without bond. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before April 16, 2015; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On April 24, 2015 the court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause ABSOLUTE and the matter is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the defendant&rsquo;s motion for bail bond, in light of this court&rsquo;s judgment in <u>In re: People v. Jones</u>, 2015 CO 20, -- P.3d --.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA19');"><img id="icon_15SA19" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA19 In Re People v Fallis, Thomas (Honorable James Quammen)" /></a>
-			15SA19 In Re People v Fallis, Thomas (Honorable James Quammen)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA19" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Thomas Fallis, seeks relief from the district court Orders of December 16, 2014 and January 14, 2015 .</p>
-
-<p>On January 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in denying &nbsp;Mr. Fallis&rsquo; motion to modify the bond conditions prohibiting him from returning to Indiana. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 11, 2015; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On April 24, 2015 the court issued an order DISMISSING the above captioned matter in light of the availability of the appellate remedy identified by this court&rsquo;s judgment in <u>In re: People v. Jones</u>, 2015 CO 20, -- P.3d --.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA284');"><img id="icon_14SA284" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA284 - In Re People v Zachariah Jones (Honorable Elizabeth A. Starrs)" /></a>
-			14SA284 - In Re People v Zachariah Jones (Honorable Elizabeth A. Starrs)&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA284" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioner, Zachariah M. Jones, seeks relief from the district court Order of March 6, 2014.</p>
-
-<p>On September 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Jones held without bond pending trial.&nbsp; Additionally, the Supreme Court ordered briefing on whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the defendant&rsquo;s appeal pursuant to &sect;16-4-204, C.R.S. The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On April 6, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA284.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA284.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('15SA1');"><img id="icon_15SA1" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 15SA1 In Re Nicole Sena v. American Family Mutual Insurance (Honorable Victor Reyes)" /></a>
-			15SA1 In Re Nicole Sena v. American Family Mutual Insurance (Honorable Victor Reyes)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_15SA1" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s orders of December 19, 2014 and December 23, 2014, requiring production of documents which it considers confidential and proprietary trade secrets.</p>
-
-<p>On January 15, 2015, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; The Respondent, Nicole L. Sena, is directed to file a written answer on or before February 16, 2015; the Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 12, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause ABSOLUTE; the district court&rsquo;s December 19, 2014 and December 23, 2014 orders were vacated; and the case was remanded for further proceedings.&nbsp; Jurisdiction was returned to the district court.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA364');"><img id="icon_14SA364" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA364 In Re City of Colorado Springs v Walker Ranches (Honorable Victor Reyes)" /></a>
-			14SA364 In Re City of Colorado Springs v Walker Ranches (Honorable Victor Reyes)&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA364" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, City of Colorado Springs, requests relief from the district court order of December 4, 2014, awarding pretrial costs without any specific finding of reasonableness.</p>
-
-<p>On December 15, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, Walker Ranches, LLP a Colorado Limited Liability Partnership, is directed to answer on or before January 14, 2015; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On February 6, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an order making the Rule to Show Cause, ABSOLUTE; the district court&rsquo;s December 4, 2014 award of costs was vacated; and the matter was remanded with directions to hear and determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by Walker Ranches, following trial in this eminent domain proceeding. &nbsp;Jurisdiction was returned to the district court.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA313');"><img id="icon_14SA313" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA313  In Re Mayfield, James v Farmers Insurance Exchange" /></a>
-			14SA313  In Re Mayfield, James v Farmers Insurance Exchange&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA313" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, James Mayfield, seeks relief from the district court Order of August 27, 2014 granting Respondent&#39;s Motion for Change of Venue.</p>
-
-<p>On October 15, 2014 the supreme court issued an Order to Show Cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file an answer brief on or before November 14, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA266');"><img id="icon_14SA266" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA266 - In Re Hagan, Deanna v Farmers Insurance Exchange (Honorable D.D. Mallard)" /></a>
-			14SA266 - In Re Hagan, Deanna v Farmers Insurance Exchange (Honorable D.D. Mallard)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA266" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioners, Deanna Hagan and Shane Hagan, seek relief from the district court Order of July 29, 2014 granting Respondent&rsquo;s motion for change of venue.</p>
-
-<p>On September 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA267');"><img id="icon_14SA267" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA267 - In Re Ewald, Cynthia v Farmers Insurance Exchange ( Honorable Andrew Hartman)" /></a>
-			14SA267 - In Re Ewald, Cynthia v Farmers Insurance Exchange ( Honorable Andrew Hartman)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA267" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, Cynthia Ewald, seeks relief from the district court Order of July 21, 2014 granting Respondent&rsquo;s motion for change of venue.</p>
-
-<p>On September 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Farmers Insurance Exchange, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 13, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 26, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA266,%2014SA267,%2014SA313.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA13');"><img id="icon_14SA13" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA13 In re: Lillian Malm v. Marion Villegas (Honorable Lilly Oeffler)" /></a>
-			14SA13 In re: Lillian Malm v. Marion Villegas (Honorable Lilly Oeffler)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA13" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In re:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Lillian R. Malm</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Marion Brigitte Villegas</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Marion Brigitte Villegas, seeks relief from the district court Order of December 20, 2013, denying the petitioner&rsquo;s motion for reconsideration of the trial court&rsquo;s order granting respondent&rsquo;s motion to reopen the case.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On January 23, 2014, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Lillian R. Malm is directed to file a written answer on or before February 24, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 20, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA13.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA13.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA268');"><img id="icon_14SA268" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA268 - In Re: People v Michael Blagg (Honorable David Bottger)" /></a>
-			14SA268 - In Re: People v Michael Blagg (Honorable David Bottger)&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2015<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA268" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of September 4, &nbsp;2014, setting bond in the amount of $500,000 cash or surety with bond conditions.</p>
-
-<p>On September 6, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Michael F. Blagg, is directed to file a written answer on or before September 17, 2014; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 12, 2015 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA268.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA268.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA253');"><img id="icon_14SA253" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA253 - In Re: Christopher Nickerson v. Network Solutions ( Honorable Gregory R. Werner)" /></a>
-			14SA253 - In Re: Christopher Nickerson v. Network Solutions ( Honorable Gregory R. Werner)&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA253" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The Petitioner, Christopher Nickerson d/b/a Christopher Alan, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order of August 19, 2014 setting aside a default judgment.</p>
-
-<p>On August 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents, Network Solutions LLC and Web.Com Group Inc., are directed to file a written answer on or before September 29, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On December 8, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA253.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA253.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA223');"><img id="icon_14SA223" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA223 In re:  Adams Bank and Trust v Al Linton (Honorable Maria Berkenkotter)" /></a>
-			14SA223 In re:  Adams Bank and Trust v Al Linton (Honorable Maria Berkenkotter)&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA223" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><strong>In Re</strong><br />
-<br />
-<strong>Plaintiff:</strong><br />
-<br />
-Adams Bank &amp; Trust,<br />
-<br />
-<strong>v.</strong><br />
-<br />
-<strong>Defendants:</strong><br />
-<br />
-Al Linton; Mike Nelson; Joel Wiens; Jan Wiens; Tim Wiens; Ron Robinson; and Certain directors of Firs Tier Bank, Louisville, Colorado, from January 1, 2009 forward, real names unknown, and the Chief Financial Officer of Firs Tier Bank, Louisville, Colorado, from January 1, 2009 forward, real name(s) unknown.</p>
-
-<p>The Petitioner, Al Linton, seeks relief from the district court Orders of May 21, 2014 (denying Linton&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint) and July 9, 2014 (denying Linton&rsquo;s Motion for Summary Judgment).</p>
-
-<p>On August 1, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent, Adams Bank &amp; Trust, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 31, 2014; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 31, 2014 the Supreme Court granted the Joint Notice of Settlement and Request for Remand. &nbsp;The original proceeding is DISMISSED and case returned to the district court for further proceedings.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA124');"><img id="icon_13SA124" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA124  In re Simpson v. Cedar Springs" /></a>
-			13SA124  In re Simpson v. Cedar Springs&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA124" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In re:<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-Scott R. Simpson<br />
-v.<br />
-Defendants:<br />
-Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a Cedar Springs Behavioral Mental Health Systems; Roger Dwight Pumphrey, M.D.; and Charles J. Peck, M.D.</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc., seeks relief from the district court order requiring petitioner to produce documents.</p>
-
-<p>On May 16, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, is directed in answer in writing, on or before June 17, 2013.&nbsp; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On October 14, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA124.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA124.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA91');"><img id="icon_13SA91" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA91 In Re: People v. Sir Mario Owens" /></a>
-			13SA91 In Re: People v. Sir Mario Owens&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA91" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Sir Mario Owens, seeks relief from the district court order denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motions for Discovery of Information relating to the prosecution&rsquo;s investigation of the petitioner&rsquo;s post conviction claims.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rules Made Absolute in Part and Discharged in Part, En Banc, the opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA94');"><img id="icon_13SA94" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA94 In Re: People v. Robert Ray" /></a>
-			13SA94 In Re: People v. Robert Ray&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA94" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Robert Keith Ray, seeks relief from the district court order denying the petitioner&rsquo;s Motions for Discovery of Information relating to the prosecution&rsquo;s investigation of the petitioner&rsquo;s post conviction claims.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rules Made Absolute in Part and Discharged in Part, En Banc, the opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA91.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA209');"><img id="icon_13SA209" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA209 In re: Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts" /></a>
-			13SA209 In re: Colorado Medical Board v. Office of Administrative Courts&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA209" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, City &amp; County of Denver, 13CV33146 (Hon. Ronald Mullins)</p>
-
-<p>In Re:</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>Colorado Medical Board,</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>Defendants:</p>
-
-<p>The Office of Administrative Courts and Matthew Norwood an Administrative Law Judge in the office of Administrative Courts,</p>
-
-<p>Defendant-Intervenor:</p>
-
-<p>Polly Train, M.D.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Colorado Medical Board, seeks relief from the district court order construing and interpreting &sect; 12-36.5-104(10)(a), C.R.S., to permit subpoena and discovery of records of the Colorado Medical Board in an administrative proceeding.</p>
-
-<p>On August 21, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents the Office of Administrative Courts and Polly Train, M.D. are directed to file a written answer on or before September 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA209.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA209.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA183');"><img id="icon_13SA183" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA183 People v. Kailey, Randy" /></a>
-			13SA183 People v. Kailey, Randy&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA183" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Jefferson County, 13CR164 (Hon. Philip McNulty)</p>
-
-<p><strong>In Re</strong><br />
-<strong>Petitioner:</strong><br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,<br />
-<strong>v.</strong><br />
-<strong>Defendant:</strong><br />
-Randy Steven Kailey.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, The People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order issued June 27, 2013 excluding the admission of evidence and testimony at trial.</p>
-
-<p>On July 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, Randy Steven Kailey, is directed to file a written answer on or before August 19, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc, the opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA183.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA183.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA102');"><img id="icon_13SA102" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA102 In Re: People v. Robert Storlie" /></a>
-			13SA102 In Re: People v. Robert Storlie&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA102" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Robert S. Storlie, seeks relief from the district court order denying the People&rsquo;s Motion for Nolle Presequi Order.</p>
-
-<p>On April 18, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents the Hon. Victor Reyes and the People of the State of Colorado are directed to file a written answer on or before May 20, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 16, 2014 the Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp; <a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA102.pdf">/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA102.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA97');"><img id="icon_13SA97" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA97 In re People v. DeAtley, Alan" /></a>
-			13SA97 In re People v. DeAtley, Alan&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA97" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Alan Eugene DeAtley, seeks relief from the district court order denying a Motion to Withdraw and a Motion to Reconsider Motion to Withdraw.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On April 11, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, Denver District Attorney Mitchell Morrissey is directed to answer in writing, on or before May 13, 2013.&nbsp;&nbsp; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 16, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp; <a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA97.pdf">/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA97.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('14SA17');"><img id="icon_14SA17" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 14SA17, In Re: Board of Commissioners v. City of Woodland Park (Honorable Edward Colt" /></a>
-			14SA17, In Re: Board of Commissioners v. City of Woodland Park (Honorable Edward Colt&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_14SA17" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><br />
-In Re:</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teller,</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-
-<p>The City of Woodland Park, a municipal corporation.<br />
-&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The Petitioner, The City of Woodland Park, seeks relief from the district court Order of January 6, 2014.<br />
-&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court abused its discretion in it&rsquo;s interpretation of C.R.S. sections 31-12-113 and 31-12-116 when it did not require the plaintiff to file its motion to reconsider within ten days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance.&nbsp; Respondent, The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teller,&nbsp;is directed to file a written answer on or before February 18, 2014; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On May 19, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, En Banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA17.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2014/14SA17.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA332');"><img id="icon_13SA332" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA332 In re: People of the State of Colorado v. Interest of Child S.G. (Honorable Donna Schmalberger) " /></a>
-			13SA332 In re: People of the State of Colorado v. Interest of Child S.G. (Honorable Donna Schmalberger) &nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA332" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In re:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>In the Interest of</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Child:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>S.G.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, S.G., seeks relief from the district court Orders of October 23 and December 13, 2013, imposing sanctions on current and prior counsel for the petitioner.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On December 30, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents, E.S. through attorney James Andrew Henderson, Guardian ad Litem; the Office of the Public Defender through Hannah Seigel Proff, Deputy Public Defender; and The People of the State of Colorado through the office of the Denver District Attorney, Lindsay L. Vangilder, Deputy District Attorney, are directed to file a written answer on or before January 14, 2014; Petitioner has 15 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On February 18, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED and the case&nbsp;DISMISSED.</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA278');"><img id="icon_13SA278" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA278, In Re: Wagner v. McMahill, James" /></a>
-			13SA278, In Re: Wagner v. McMahill, James&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA278" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Weld County, 10CV1202 ( Hon. Dinsmore Tuttle)</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p><strong>In Re</strong><br />
-<strong>Plaintiff:</strong><br />
-Cindy Wagner,</p>
-
-<p><strong>v.</strong></p>
-
-<p><strong>Defendants:</strong><br />
-James Brian McMahill; and Allen, Vahrenwald &amp; Johnson LLC, n/k/a Vahrenwald, Johnson &amp; McMahill, LLC a Colorado limited liability company;</p>
-
-<p><br />
-<strong>and Concerning</strong></p>
-
-<p><br />
-<strong>Defendant:</strong><br />
-Attorney H.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, Cindy Wagner, seeks relief from the district court Order of September 23, 2013, granting the Motion to Take Deposition of Attorney H over the objections of the Petitioner.</p>
-
-<p>On November 5, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondents James Brian McMahill and Allen, Vahrenwald &amp; Johnson LLC, n/k/a Vahrenwald, Johnson &amp; McMahill, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, are directed to file a written answer on or before December 5, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On January 30, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED as having been improvidently issued.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA287');"><img id="icon_13SA287" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA287 In Re: City of Commerce City v. Desire Tatum, (Honorable C. Vincent Phelps " /></a>
-			13SA287 In Re: City of Commerce City v. Desire Tatum, (Honorable C. Vincent Phelps &nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2014<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA287" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In re:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>City of Commerce City,</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>v.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>Desire Tatum</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, City of Commerce City, seeks relief from the Administrative Order of the Chief Judge 12-03, Amended May 9, 2013, and the district court&rsquo;s order issued October 2, 2013, quashing a citation to show cause and staying proceedings pending appeal in Commerce City Municipal Court case number CM00218623.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On November 7, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. The respondent Hon. C. Vincent Phelps, is directed to file a written answer on or before December 9, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On January 14, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order that the Rule to Show Cause previously issued is DISCHARGED as having been improvidently issued.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('13SA113');"><img id="icon_13SA113" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 13SA113, In Re: People v. Voth, Paul" /></a>
-			13SA113, In Re: People v. Voth, Paul&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_13SA113" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Chaffee County, 12CR72 (Hon. Charles Barton)</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>In Re</p>
-
-<p><br />
-Plaintiff:</p>
-
-<p><br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-
-<p><br />
-v.</p>
-
-<p><br />
-Defendant:</p>
-
-<p><br />
-Paul Lesley Voth.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court holding that the respondent&rsquo;s prolonged delirium, believed to be caused by an unidentified viral infection, could form the basis of an involuntary intoxication defense pursuant to C.R.S. 18-1-804.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On May 15, 2013, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Respondent Paul Lesley Voth is directed to file a written answer on or before June 14, 2013; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On October 21, 2013 the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc, the opinion can be found at:</p>
-
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA113.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2013/13SA113.pdf</a></p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA156');"><img id="icon_12SA156" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA156 In Re: People v. John Brothers" /></a>
-			12SA156 In Re: People v. John Brothers&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA156" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks </span><span style="font-size: 10pt">relief from the district court order denying the People&rsquo;s Motions to Quash.<span style="color: black">&nbsp; </span></span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On May 18, 2012<span style="color: black">, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; </span>Respondent John Holland Brothers is directed to file a written answer on or before June 7,<span style="color: black"> 2011; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;On May 28, 2013, the court issued an opinion,&nbsp;Rule&nbsp;Made Absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA156.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA156.pdf</a></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA75');"><img id="icon_12SA75" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA75 - The People v. Jesus Luna-Solis" /></a>
-			12SA75 - The People v. Jesus Luna-Solis&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA75" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order suppressing DNA evidence as a sanction for the People&rsquo;s C.R.Crim.P. 16(II)(a) &ldquo;discovery violation&rdquo;.</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>On May 3, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Jesus Luna-Solis is directed to file a written answer on or before May 24, 2011; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On April 8, 2013&nbsp;the Supreme Court issued an opinion, Judgment Reversed and Rule Made Absolute, En Banc. The opinion can be found at <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA75.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA75.pdf</a></p>
-
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA189');"><img id="icon_12SA189" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA189- In Re: People v. Bruce Nozolino" /></a>
-			12SA189- In Re: People v. Bruce Nozolino&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA189" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">The petitioner, Bruce J. Nozolino, seeks relief from the district court order disqualifying his counsel of choice, the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender from representing him in the underlying matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On June 21, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before July 23, 2012; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; font-size: 11pt">On March 25, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA189.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA189.pdf</font></a></span></div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA263');"><img id="icon_12SA263" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA263 In Re: People In the Interest of W.P., an Adult" /></a>
-			12SA263 In Re: People In the Interest of W.P., an Adult&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA263" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">The petitioner, W.P., seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying the Petitioner&rsquo;s request for a second competency evaluation at state expense.&nbsp; </span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On September 20, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; The Respondent, the People of the State of Colorado, is directed to file a written answer on or before October 10, 2012; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On February 11, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at:</span></p>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA263.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA263.pdf</font></a></span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA83');"><img id="icon_12SA83" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA83 - In Re: Liebnow v. Boston Enterprises" /></a>
-			12SA83 - In Re: Liebnow v. Boston Enterprises&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2013<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA83" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Emily Liebnow, a minor, by and through her next best friends and natural parents Randy Liebnow and Suzanne Liebnow, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of March 13, 2012, disqualifying the Washington state law firm of Marler Clark and, in particular, attorney Bill Marler, from serving as co-counsel for Petitioner (Plaintiff below) in the underlying personal injury case.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On March 22, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent,&nbsp;Boston Enterprises, Inc., a Colorado Corporation d/b/a Giacomo&rsquo;s is directed to file a written answer on or before April 23, 2012.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On February 4, 2013, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at:</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA83.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA83.pdf</font></a> </span></div>
-</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA199');"><img id="icon_12SA199" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA199 - Stacey Warden v. Exempla, Inc." /></a>
-			12SA199 - Stacey Warden v. Exempla, Inc.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA199" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="font-size: 10pt">The petitioners, Stacy and Chris Warden, individually and on behalf of their son Noah, seek relief from the district court order striking three of the petitioners expert witnesses.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On July 2, 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents, Jessica Jenks, R.N., Camille Calderwood, M.D., Jennifer Dillon, R.N. Exempla Good Samaritan Center L.L.C. and Exempla, Inc. d/b/a Exempla Healthcare, are directed to file a written answer on or before August 1, 2012; Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p>On December 20, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA199.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA199.pdf</font></a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA63');"><img id="icon_12SA63" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA63 In Re the Marriage of Wiggins" /></a>
-			12SA63 In Re the Marriage of Wiggins&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA63" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Petitioner Zwilda Wiggins (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of January 8, 2012 denying Petitioner&rsquo;s Motion for Protective Order.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On March 1, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent,&nbsp;Jeffrey A. Wiggins is directed to file a written answer on or before March 21, 2012.&nbsp;Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On June 18, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA63.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA63.pdf</font></a></div>
-</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA81');"><img id="icon_12SA81" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA81, In Re: Hampers, Lous and Hampers, Kelley" /></a>
-			12SA81, In Re: Hampers, Lous and Hampers, Kelley&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA81" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 2009DR3343 (Honorable Stephen Collins)</p>
-<p><span new="" times="" style="font-family: "><strong>In Re</strong></span><span new="" times="" style="font-family: "><br />
-<br />
-In re the Marriage of Hampers,<br />
-<br />
-<b>Petitioner:</b><br />
-<br />
-Louis C. Hampers, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Louis C. Hampers Trust,<br />
-<br />
-<b>and</b><br />
-<br />
-Constantine L. Hampers, individually and in his capacities as attorney in fact for Luis C. Hampers and Trustee of the Hampers Family Trust,<br />
-<br />
-<b>Co-Petitioner:</b><br />
-<br />
-Kelley A. Hampers.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span new="" times="" style="font-family: "><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Louis C. Hampers, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the <i>Louis C. Hampers Trust</i> seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order of March 14, 2012, granting the Respondent (Co-Petitioner below) Kelley A. Hampers&rsquo; Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Petitioner, Louis C. Hampers.</span>&nbsp;</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On March 19, 2012, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent,&nbsp;Kelley A. Hampers is directed to file a written answer on or before April 18, 2012.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">On June 4, 2012 the Court found that the financial issues have been resolved in their entirety by settlement of the parties, and the district court&rsquo;s order compelling production became moot.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">The Court VACATED the district court&rsquo;s March 14, 2012&nbsp;order in it&rsquo;s entirety, and DISMISSED the Rule to Show Cause previously issued. </span>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('12SA24');"><img id="icon_12SA24" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 12SA24 In Re:  People v. Brittney Angel" /></a>
-			12SA24 In Re:  People v. Brittney Angel&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_12SA24" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>12SA24 In Re:&nbsp; People v. Brittney Angel</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order Granting the Defendant&rsquo;s Motion for Disclosure of the Prosecutor&rsquo;s Handwritten Interview Notes and the Opinions of an individual Prosecutor issued January 17, 2012. &nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On January 27 2012, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Brittney Breann Angel is directed to file a written answer on or before February 27, 2012; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On May 14, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at:</span> <span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA24.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2012/12SA24.pdf</font></a> </span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA51');"><img id="icon_11SA51" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA51, In Re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael" /></a>
-			11SA51, In Re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA51" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div><span style="font-size: 11pt">District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV671 (Honorable Charles Pratt)</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt"><b>In Re:</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Plaintiff:</b><br />
-<br />
-Donald Francis Smith,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-<br />
-Michael D. Jeppsen and Virginia S. Benincosa,<br />
-<br />
-<br />
-<b>Intervenor:</b><br />
-<br />
-State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance.</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Synopsis:</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Petitioners Michael Jeppsen and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order that section 10-1-135, C.R.S. applies prospectively to the case and precludes admission of evidence regarding the actual amounts paid for Plaintiff&rsquo;s&rsquo; medical treatments. </span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On March 10, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Donald Francis Smith is directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 45 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On Apr 30, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: </span><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA51.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA51.pdf</font></a> </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA250');"><img id="icon_11SA250" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA250 In Re:  Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera" /></a>
-			11SA250 In Re:  Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA250" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In Re:<br />
-<strong>Plaintiffs</strong>:&nbsp; <br />
-Linda Willhite and Rex Willhite,<br />
-v.<br />
-<strong>Defendants:</strong><br />
-Paulo Rodriguez-Cera and Juan Torres</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioners Linda and Rex Willhite (the plaintiffs below) seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order quashing service of process that determined international service of process should have occurred through the Hague Convention. </span></p>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On September 15, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Paulo Rodriguez-Cera is directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On Apr</span> <span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at:</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA250.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA250.pdf</font></a></span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA224');"><img id="icon_11SA224" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA224 In Re:  Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC" /></a>
-			11SA224 In Re:  Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA224" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In Re:<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado,<br />
-v.<br />
-Respondents: <br />
-Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.<br />
-<br />
-11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 -&nbsp; <span style="color: black">In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents,&nbsp;Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On April 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf</font></a></span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA225');"><img id="icon_11SA225" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA225 In Re:  Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC" /></a>
-			11SA225 In Re:  Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado v. Colorado PUC&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA225" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In Re:<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado,<br />
-v.<br />
-Respondents: <br />
-Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.<br />
-<br />
-11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 -&nbsp; <span style="color: black">In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents,&nbsp;Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On April 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Discharged, en banc.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA224,%2011SA225.pdf</font></a></span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA331');"><img id="icon_11SA331" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA331 - In  Re: People v. Tyler R. Wilburn" /></a>
-			11SA331 - In  Re: People v. Tyler R. Wilburn&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA331" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">The Petitioner (defendant below), Tyler R. Wilburn, seeks relief from the district court order that in order to present expert evidence at trial concerning the defendant&rsquo;s mental health disorders, the defendant would be required to submit to a court ordered evaluation pursuant to &sect; 16-8-108, C.R.S. by committing the defendant to CMHIP pursuant to &sect; 16-8-105.5, C.R.S.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On November 17, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before December 19, 2011; Petitioner Wilburn has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On March 26, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: &nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA331.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA331.pdf</font></a></div>
-</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA305');"><img id="icon_11SA305" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA305 In Re:  People v. Salazar" /></a>
-			11SA305 In Re:  People v. Salazar&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA305" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>11SA305&nbsp; In Re:&nbsp; People v. Salazar</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white"><span style="font-size: 10pt">The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s Order Concerning the Defendant&rsquo;s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Regarding Specific Instances of Witness&rsquo;s Prior Sexual Conduct and Request to Introduce Evidence of Alternate Suspect issued October 14, 2011.&nbsp; <br />
-</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; background: white">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On October 31, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Yrineo Salazar is directed to file a written answer on or before November 21, 2011; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On March 19, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp;The Opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA305.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA305.pdf</font></a></div>
-</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA226');"><img id="icon_11SA226" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA226 - In Re:  Peabody Energy Corporation v. Colorado PUC" /></a>
-			11SA226 - In Re:  Peabody Energy Corporation v. Colorado PUC&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA226" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In Re:<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-Peabody Energy Corporation,<br />
-v.<br />
-Respondents: <br />
-Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.<br />
-<br />
-11SA224, 11SA225, and 11SA226 -&nbsp; <span style="color: black">In these three related original proceedings, the Petitioners Colorado Public Utilities Commission; Joshua Epel, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and James K. Tarpey and Matt Baker, in their official capacity as members of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (the respondents below) seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders denying motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On September 16, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents,&nbsp;Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado and Peabody Energy Corporation, are directed to file a written answer on or before October 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p>On February 24, 2012 the court granted a joint motion to Dismiss.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA304');"><img id="icon_11SA304" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA304 In Re:  People v. Workman" /></a>
-			11SA304 In Re:  People v. Workman&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA304" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>11SA304 In Re:&nbsp; People v. Workman<br />
-<br />
-<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">The petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, seeks relief from the district court order denying the People&rsquo;s request to introduce evidence of prior conduct by the defendant.&nbsp; </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On November 2, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Michael Workman is directed to file a written answer on or before December 2, 2011; petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On February 16, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA777');"><img id="icon_11SA777" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA77 In Re:  Vinton v. Virzi" /></a>
-			11SA77 In Re:  Vinton v. Virzi&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA777" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioner Amanda Vinton seeks relief from the probate court&rsquo;s orders denying Petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying Petitioner&rsquo;s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.</p>
-<div>On March 24, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Debra McWilliams, Trustee of the Walter J. Kirkland &amp; Elaine Kirkland Irrevocable Living Trust, and individually, Sharon Virzi, Beneficiary and Walter J. Kirkland &amp; Elaine Kirkland Irrevocable Living Trust are directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<p><span style="color: black">On February 13, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA77.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA77.pdf</font></a></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA82');"><img id="icon_11SA82" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA82 In Re: Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods, Inc., and Colorado Sun Oil Processing, LLC" /></a>
-			11SA82 In Re: Colorado Mills, LLC v. SunOpta Grains and Foods, Inc., and Colorado Sun Oil Processing, LLC&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA82" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioners SK Food International and Adams Vegetable Oil Inc.seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order enforcing subpoenas, contending that because they are out-of-state entities and not parties to the litigation for which the documents are being sought, the arbitrator and court lack jurisdiction over them; and that the documents contain sensitive commercial data for which defendant SunOpta has not shown a compelling need.</p>
-<div>On April 12, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Colorado Sun Oil Processing LLC and SunOpta Grains and Food Inc. are directed to provide a written answer by May 12, 2011; petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt">On February 6, 2012, the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</span></div>
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA82.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA82.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA248');"><img id="icon_11SA248" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA248, In Re the Marriage of Brandt and Brandt" /></a>
-			11SA248, In Re the Marriage of Brandt and Brandt&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA248" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p>District Court, Arapahoe County,11DR1312</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><strong><span new="" times="" style="font-family: ">In re the Marriage of</span><span new="" times="" style="font-family: "><br />
-<br />
-</span></strong><span new="" times="" style="font-family: "><strong>Petitioner:<br />
-</strong><br />
-George T. Brandt,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-Respondent:<br />
-<br />
-Christine Brandt.</span></p>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt">Petitioner Christine Brandt (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order re: petition to register foreign decree and assumption of jurisdiction to modify child custody of the parties&rsquo; minor child, currently in the care of Respondent George Brandt.</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt">On September 2, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent,&nbsp;George Brandt is directed to file a written answer on or before September 22, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-</div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On January 23, 2012, the court issued an opinion, order was reversed and the rule made absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA248.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA248.pdf</font></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA283');"><img id="icon_11SA283" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA283 In Re: Curran, et al v. Philadelphia Financial, et al" /></a>
-			11SA283 In Re: Curran, et al v. Philadelphia Financial, et al&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2012<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA283" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Boulder Couty, 2009CV907 (Honorable Lael Montgomery)</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><b><span style="font-family: ">Plaintiffs:</span></b><span style="font-family: "><br />
-<br />
-Carol B. Curran, et al,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-<br />
-Philadelphia Financial Life Assurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, et al.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span style="font-family: "><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The Petitioners, Philadelphia&hellip;, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which sought dismissal of Plaintiffs&rsquo; class action claims for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On October 18, 2011, the supreme court issue a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp;Respondents, Curran&hellip; are directed to file a written answer on or before November 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 20 days from the receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On January 17, 2012, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA186');"><img id="icon_11SA186" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA186 In Re: Westwood College Inc. v. Estes, Jillian" /></a>
-			11SA186 In Re: Westwood College Inc. v. Estes, Jillian&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA186" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>&nbsp;<span style="line-height: 200%; font-size: 10pt">District Court, City and County of Denver, 10CV2196 (Honorable Sheila Rappaport)</span></p>
-<p><b><span style="line-height: 200%; font-size: 10pt">In Re</span></b><span style="line-height: 200%; font-size: 10pt"><br />
-<b>Plaintiffs:</b><br />
-Westwood College, Inc. and Alta Colleges, Inc.,<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-Jillian Estes; Chris Hoyer; James Hoyer Newcomer Smiljanich &amp; Yanchunis, PA; Consumer Warning Network; Jameshoyer.com; Westwoodscammed.me; Westwoodsuit.com; Warnings About Westwood College; Laurie Mackenzie; and Jessica Mackenzie.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The defendants, Jillian Estes and Chris Hoyer, the law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &amp;Smiljanich, P.A. and Consumer Warning Network, seek relief from the district court order denying their motion to dismiss.&nbsp; They claim that the underlying suit was commenced in retaliation against the defendants for other legal proceedings that have been filed and as such the underlying case is a violation of the litigation privilege and should be dismissed.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On July 19, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Alta Colleges, Inc., and Westwood College, Inc., are&nbsp; directed to file a written answer on or before August 18, 2011; the Petitioners, Jillian Estes and Chris Hoyer, the law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer &amp;Smiljanich, P.A. and Consumer Warning Network, have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp; Copy of court <a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/11SA186%20Order.pdf">Order issued November 17, 2011</a>.</div>
-</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA208');"><img id="icon_11SA208" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA208 - In Re:  People v. Hasty" /></a>
-			11SA208 - In Re:  People v. Hasty&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA208" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>In Re:<br />
-<strong>Plaintiff:</strong><br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,<br />
-v.<br />
-<strong>Defendant:</strong><br />
-Jackie Hasty.</p>
-<p>The defendant, Jackie Hasty, seeks relief from the district court order denying her motion to disqualify the District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District and to appoint a special prosecutor.&nbsp; She claims that the District Attorney has a personal interest and that special circumstances exist that prevent her from receiving a fair trial where a deputy district attorney is a witness to the shooting of a police officer and the District Attorney initiated ex parte communication with the court.</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On July 27, 2011, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the relief rquested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District is directed to file a written answer on or before August 26, 2011; Petitioner Hasty has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p>On November 17, 2011 the court issued an order discharging the rule to Show Cause and dismissing the original proceeding.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA66');"><img id="icon_11SA66" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA66 In Re: Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." /></a>
-			11SA66 In Re: Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA66" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Petitioner Holly Averyt seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order granting Respondent a new trial.</p>
-<div>On March 24, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is directed to file a written answer on or before April 25, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On November 7, 2011 the court issued an opinion, Rule Made Absolute. &nbsp;The opinion can be found at:</span> <span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA66.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA66.pdf</font></a> </span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA373');"><img id="icon_10SA373" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA373, In Re: Ortega, Ernest v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C." /></a>
-			10SA373, In Re: Ortega, Ernest v. Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA373" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV9328, (Honorable William W. Hood III)</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><span times="" new="" style="font-family: ">In Re</span><span times="" new="" style="font-family: "><br />
-<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-<br />
-Ernest Ortega,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-Defendants:<br />
-<br />
-Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C.; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado; and David Lieuwen, M.D.</span></span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><span times="" new="" style="font-family: ">Synopsis:</span></span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Ernest Ortega seeks relief in the nature of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the district court&rsquo;s orders holding that the physician-patient privilege does not attach to any of his private health information acquired by scores of treating non-party physicians and nurses over a ten-year period.</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On December 16, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado and David Lieuwen, M.D. are directed to file a written answer on or before January 21, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner Earnest Ortega has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On November 7, 2011 the court issued an opinion,&nbsp;Rule Discharged.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at: </span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><span style="line-height: 200%; color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA373.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA373.pdf</font></a></span></span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<ol>
-    <li>&nbsp;</li>
-</ol>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA374');"><img id="icon_10SA374" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for  10SA374, In Re: Moreland/Manoogian, LLC v. Judd, Richard" /></a>
-			 10SA374, In Re: Moreland/Manoogian, LLC v. Judd, Richard&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA374" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt">
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV7235, (Honorable Herbert L. Stern, III.)</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV11018</span></div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 9pt"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt">In Re</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt"><br />
-<br />
-District Court, City and County of Denver, 09CV7235,<br />
-<br />
-<b>Plaintiffs:</b><br />
-<br />
-Cedar Street Venture, LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company and Montage Project Joint Venture,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-<br />
-Richard D. Judd and Robinson Waters &amp; O'Dorisio, P.C.,<br />
-<br />
-<b>and</b><br />
-<br />
-District Court, City and County of Denver, 2009CV11018,<br />
-<br />
-<b>Plaintiffs:</b><br />
-<br />
-Moreland/Manoogian, LLC and Tamsen Investments, LLC,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-<br />
-Richard D. Judd; Stephen L. Waters; and Robinson Waters &amp; O'Dorisio, P.C.</span></div>
-</div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioners Richard D. Judd, Stephen L. Waters, and Robinson Waters &amp; O&rsquo;Dorisio, P.C.seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders requiring Petitioners to produce private financial records and awarding attorneys&rsquo; fees.</span></div>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On December 21, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Moreland/Manoogian. LLC and Tamsen Investments, LLC are directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA374.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA374.pdf</a></span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA80');"><img id="icon_11SA80" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA80, In Re: The Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa" /></a>
-			11SA80, In Re: The Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA80" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">2011SA80, In Re Marriage of Dedie, Mark and Springston, Melissa</span></p>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">District Court, City and County of Denver, 11DDR851 (Honorable Herbert Stern)</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><b><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">In re the Marriage of</span></b></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><b><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner:</span></b></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Mark S. Dedie,</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">v.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><b><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Respondent:</span></b></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Melissa J. Springston.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Synopsis:</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Melissa Springston (the respondent below) seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order enforcing an order issued by the New York Supreme Court granting temporary sole custody of the parties&rsquo; minor children to Respondent Mark Dedie.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On March 18, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Mark S. Dedie (the petitioner below) is directed to file a written answer on or before April 18, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA80.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2011/11SA80.pdf</a></span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA234');"><img id="icon_10SA234" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA234, In Re: Thomas v. FDIC" /></a>
-			10SA234, In Re: Thomas v. FDIC&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA234" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Montrose County, 07CV206 (Hon. James W. Schum)</p>
-<p><strong><b><span style="font-size: 9pt">In Re</span></b><span style="font-size: 9pt"><br />
-<br />
-<b>Plaintiffs:</b><br />
-<br />
-</span></strong><span style="font-size: 9pt">Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties, Inc.,</span><strong><span style="font-size: 9pt"><br />
-</span><span style="font-size: 9pt"><br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendants:</b><br />
-<br />
-</span></strong><span style="font-size: 9pt">Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver of New Frontier Bank; The Bridges Country Club, Inc.; The Bridges Golf &amp; County Club; Clinton Blum, personal representative of Estate of D.L. Day Jr., a/k/a Larry Day, Jr., a/k/a Delbert L. Day; Black Canyon Golf, LLLP; Brown Financial LLC; Weslin, LLC; Keenan's Industries, Inc.; RJ's Painting, LLC; Ridgway Valley Enterprises, LLC; John Prater, as personal representative for the Estate of James L. Lear; ASAP Rental Sales of Leadville, Inc.; United Rentals Northwest; Robert Beisen-Herz; Downey Excavation, Inc.; Patrik Davis Associates, P.C.; Chuck's Glass, Inc.; Buckhorn Geotech, Inc.; The Bridges at Black Canyon, Inc.; Northstar Bridges, LLC; Leslie Buttorff; Judy Pfountz; MPI/DBS Colorado/Texas LLLP, d/b/a Foothills Lighting &amp; Supply; Richard P. Chulick, as receiver in Montrose District Court Case 07CV49; Rosemary Murphy, as the public trustee of Montrose County, Colorado; First City Corp.; and All Unknown Persons who Claim any interest in the Subject Matter of this Action.</span></p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its capacity as Receiver of New Frontier Bank seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying petitioner&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss, contending that the underlying lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Respondents Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties&rsquo; failure to exhaust the mandatory administrative claims review process created by Congress as part of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On July 20, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Steven P. Thomas and Thomas Properties, Inc. are directed to file a written answer by August 19, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner FDIC has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA234.pdf">www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA234.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA341');"><img id="icon_10SA341" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA341, In Re: People v. Ray, Robert " /></a>
-			10SA341, In Re: People v. Ray, Robert &nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA341" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR697, Honorable Gerald J. Rafferty</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><strong>In Re</strong></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><br />
-<br />
-<strong>Plaintiff:</strong><br />
-<br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendant:</b><br />
-<br />
-Robert Keith Ray.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<p>Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order requiring the prosecution to provide to the court the addresses of protected witnesses in a witness murder case.</p>
-<div>On November 10, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Robert Keith Ray is directed to file a written answer on or before November 29, 2010.&nbsp;Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div>
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 9pt">On April 25, 2011, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at: </span><span style="font-size: 9pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA341.pdf"><span style="color: blue">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA341.pdf</span></a></span></div>
-</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA325');"><img id="icon_10SA325" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA325, In re: People v. Williamson, Craig" /></a>
-			10SA325, In re: People v. Williamson, Craig&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA325" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">District Court, Arapahoe County, 2009CR234 (Hon. John Wheeler)</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In Re:</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><strong>Plaintiff:</strong></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><br />
-<br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,</span></span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Defendant:</b><br />
-<br />
-Craig Dumene Williamson.</span></span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-</div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<div>
-<div>Synopsis:</div>
-<div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt">Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order allowing the defendant to call witnesses to show that the sexual assault victim had been arrested four times in three years for soliciting prostitution with men other than the defendant.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 11pt">On October 29, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Craig Dumene Williamson is directed to file a written answer by November 30, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-</div>
-</div>
-<p>On April 11, 2011 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA325.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA325.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA6');"><img id="icon_11SA6" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA6, In Re: Fuzell, Frank v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours" /></a>
-			11SA6, In Re: Fuzell, Frank v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours&nbsp;&nbsp;Apr 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA6" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, City and County of Denver, 10CV5098 (Honorable Michael A. Martinez)</p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In Re</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><br />
-<br />
-Plaintiffs:<br />
-<br />
-Frank C. Fuzell and Lois Elizabeth Fuzzell, individually, and as the next friends and parents of Alicia Leigh Fuzzell, a minor and Fuzzell Wholesale Nursery, Inc.,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-Defendants:<br />
-<br />
-E.I. Dupont de Nemours &amp; Company, a Delaware corporation; Terra Industries, Inc., a Maryland corporation; Platte Chemical Company, a Florida corporation; and Foremost Fertilizer Company, a Florida corporation.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Holland &amp; Hart seeks relief from three orders of the district court denying petitioner&rsquo;s motion for protective order, clarifying that denial, and granting the motion to compel petitioner&rsquo;s production of its protected work product.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On January 18, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent E.I. DuPont de Nemours &amp; Company is directed to file a written answer on or before February 17, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On April 8, 2011, the Court finds that there is no longer a live controversy before this Court in light of the Florida court order in <u>Fuzzell et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &amp; Company</u>, Case No. 97-739, which has precluded causation testimony at trial by plaintiffs' expert Dr. mills.&nbsp; It is ordered that the Order and Rule to Show Cause is dismissed as moot.</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA376');"><img id="icon_10SA376" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA376, In Re: People v. Deanda, Cesar" /></a>
-			10SA376, In Re: People v. Deanda, Cesar&nbsp;&nbsp;Mar 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA376" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 95CR1214, (Honorable Deborah L. Grohs)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Cesar Deanda.</p>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Synopsis:</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s pre-trial order precluding medical experts from offering opinion testimony that the victim&rsquo;s injuries resulted from child abuse, medical child abuse or non-accidental trauma.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On December 16, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Cesar Deanda is directed to file a written answer on or before January 5, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On March 25, 2011, the Court ordered that the Rule to Show Cause is made Absolute.&nbsp; The order of the district court is reversed for reconsideration in light of <u>People v. Rector</u>, No. 09SC708 (Colo.March 14, 2011).</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA345');"><img id="icon_10SA345" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA345 In Re: People v. Baharmast, Farzin Traver" /></a>
-			10SA345 In Re: People v. Baharmast, Farzin Traver&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA345" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">District Court, Adams County, 10CR1045, (Honorable Frederick Goodbee)</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In Re:</span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><br />
-<br />
-Plaintiff:<br />
-<br />
-The People of the State of Colorado,<br />
-<br />
-v.<br />
-<br />
-Defendant:<br />
-<br />
-Farzin Traver Baharmast.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><span style="color: black">Synopsis:</span></span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black">Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order suppressing scientific test results, ruling that the People were in violation of discovery obligations by not timely disclosing scientific test results that were not yet available.<br />
-</span><br />
-<span style="color: black">On November 12, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Farzin Traver Baharmast is directed to file a written answer on or before December 13, 2010.&nbsp;Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p>On February 25, 2011, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing this original proceeding.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('11SA32');"><img id="icon_11SA32" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 11SA32, In Re: People v. Weeks, Mark" /></a>
-			11SA32, In Re: People v. Weeks, Mark&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_11SA32" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Logan County, 2010CR141 (Hon. Michael K. Singer)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Mark Weeks.</p>
-<p><span style="color: black">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<div><span style="color: black">Petitioner Mark Weeks seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order compelling petitioner to reveal the password to his cellular phone to the prosecution.</span></div>
-<div>&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On February 17, 2011, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent People of State of Colorado is directed to file a written answer on or before March 21, 2011.&nbsp;Petitioner Mark Weeks has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">The supreme court invites the following organizations, or any other interested party, to file an amicus curiae brief in this matter:</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">The Colorado Bar Association</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Colorado Criminal Defense Bar</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Colorado District Attorneys&rsquo; Council</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Attorney General&rsquo;s Office</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Public Defender&rsquo;s Office.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">Any amicus brief is due within the time allotted the party whose position it supports.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black">On February 24, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the original proceeding.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/11SA32%20-%202-24-11%20Order.pdf">2-24-11 Order</a></span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA315');"><img id="icon_10SA315" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA315,In re: People v. Vlassis, Spiros" /></a>
-			10SA315,In re: People v. Vlassis, Spiros&nbsp;&nbsp;Feb 2011<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA315" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">District Court, Arapahoe County, 2001CR1160 (Hon. John Wheeler)</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">In Re:</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Plaintiff:</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">The People of the State of Colorado</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">v.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Defendant:&nbsp; </span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Spiros Vlassis.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<div><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order granting the defendant&rsquo;s motion for disclosure of prosecutor&rsquo;s notes and emails, contending that the trial court misapprehended the scope of Crim.P.16 (I)(a)(1)(I) and incorrectly mandated that the prosecution automatically discover the contents of trial preparation discussions between the prosecutor and any witness, regardless of the exculpatory nature of the discussion.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On October 13, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the reques</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">ted relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Spiros Theodore Vlassis is directed to file a written answer by November 2, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner the People of the State of Colorado has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p>On February 22, 2011, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA315.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA315.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA146');"><img id="icon_10SA146" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA146, In re: Glab, Nicole and Julian, Ronald " /></a>
-			10SA146, In re: Glab, Nicole and Julian, Ronald &nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA146" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 09DR1720 (Hon. Barney Iuppa)</p>
-<p>In Re the Parental Responsibilities Concerning: Brooklyn F. Julian and Kayla D. Julian,</p>
-<p><strong>Petitioners:</strong></p>
-<p>Nicole Anne Glab and Jason Glab,</p>
-<p>and</p>
-<p><strong>Respondents:</strong></p>
-<p>Ronald David Julian and Coy Summers</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-Petitioner Ronald D. Julian seeks to have the supreme court vacate the El Paso County District Court&rsquo;s Order regarding temporary parenting time and to remand the matter back to the district court with instructions that the district court apply the appropriate legal standard when deciding the propriety of any order for parenting time between the Respondents Glabs and the children.&nbsp;Petitioner argues that the district court abused its discretion by entering the order.</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On May 14, 2010, the supreme court ordered that a Rule to Show Cause issue.&nbsp;Respondents Jason Glab and Nicole Anne Glab are directed to answer, in writing on or before June 14, 2010, why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted.&nbsp;Petitioner Ronald David Julian has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On November 30, 2010 the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA146.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA146.pdf</a></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA20');"><img id="icon_10SA20" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA20, In re: Garrigan, Phillip v. Bowen, Philip" /></a>
-			10SA20, In re: Garrigan, Phillip v. Bowen, Philip&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA20" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Mesa County, 06CV399 (Hon. David Bottger)<br />
-<br />
-In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff: <br />
-<br />
-Phillip Garrigan</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Philip J. Bowen, M.D.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Philip J. Bowen, M.D., seeks relief from an order of the Mesa County District Court granting in part plaintiff Garrigan&rsquo;s motion for discovery violations and striking the proposed trial testimony of Dr. Bowen&rsquo;s key expert witness in this medical negligence case.&nbsp; Here, the proposed expert witness was the primary author of a 2006 article analyzing data from similar cases; plaintiff sough the underlying research data and documents, which Dr. Bowen argues are not in the expert witness&rsquo;s possession or control, but rather are in the custody and control of the institution that oversaw the research.&nbsp; The district court here held that because the expert witness reviewed and considered the data when she performed the study, and because she relied in part on the study in forming her opinions in the instant case, she &ldquo;considered&rdquo; the underlying data and research documents in forming her opinions in this case and thus the expert witness could not testify unless she provided the underlying research data to the plaintiff.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">On January 22, 2010, the court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Garrigan is directed to provide a written answer on or before February 22, 2010.&nbsp; Dr. Bowen has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On Monday, November 22, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:<br />
-</span><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA20.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA20.pdf</a></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA101');"><img id="icon_10SA101" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA101, In re: People v. Baltazar" /></a>
-			10SA101, In re: People v. Baltazar&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA101" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 09CR3824 (Hon. Deborah Grohs)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Theresa Yvette Baltazar.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">The People of the State of Colorado seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order allowing counsel for the respondent to issue subpoenas duces tecum on an ex parte basis, without complying with the requirements of Cri. P. 17(c).</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">On April 22, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Respondent Theresa Baltazar is directed to file a written answer by May 21, 2010.&nbsp; The People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p>On November 8, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</p>
-<p><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA101.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA101.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA239');"><img id="icon_10SA239" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA239, In re: People v. Halprin" /></a>
-			10SA239, In re: People v. Halprin&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA239" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Pueblo County, 97CR1412 (Hon. Victor Reyes)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Arthur Henry Halprin.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Arthur Halprin seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order finding denying his motion alleging that he has completed the probationary period originally imposed in 1999 and requesting termination of probation.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On July 21, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The People are directed to file a written answer on or before August 10, 2010.&nbsp; Halprin has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">
-<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt">On November 5, 2010 the Supreme Court issued an order making the rule absolute and discharging petitioner from probation.</div>
-</span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA320');"><img id="icon_10SA320" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA320, In re the Marriage of: Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld" /></a>
-			10SA320, In re the Marriage of: Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA320" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Boulder County, 10DR511 (Hon. James Klein)</p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><strong>In re the Marriage of</strong></span><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><br />
-<br />
-<strong>Petitioner:<br />
-<br />
-</strong>Kathleen A. Rosenfeld,<br />
-<br />
-and<br />
-<strong><br />
-Respondent:<br />
-<br />
-</strong>Alan David Rosenfeld.</span></p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Alan David Rosenfeld seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order providing for the suspension of father&rsquo;s parenting time with the children as a sanction for nonpayment of ordered fees to a third party provider.&nbsp;</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On October 18, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Honorable James C. Klein is directed to file a written answer by November 4, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><br />
-On October 28, 2010 Judge Klein answered the Order and Rule to Show Cause.&nbsp;On November 1, 2010 the supreme court discharged the rule and dismissed the original proceeding as moot.</div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA161');"><img id="icon_10SA161" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA161, In re the Marriage of: Hall and Hall" /></a>
-			10SA161, In re the Marriage of: Hall and Hall&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA161" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Pueblo County, 09DR1010 (Hon. Victor Reyes)</p>
-<p><strong>In re the Marriage of:</strong></p>
-<p><strong>Petitioner:</strong></p>
-<p>Angela Hall,</p>
-<p>and</p>
-<p><strong>Respondent:</strong></p>
-<p>Bradley Hall.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Angela Hall seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying her Motion for Appointment of Impartial Licensed Mental Health Professional and for Evaluation and Report in this dissolution of marriage action in which the parties are litigating allocation of parental time and responsibility.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">On May 26, 2010, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Bradley Hall is directed to file a written answer on or before June 25, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner Angela Hall&nbsp;has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">On October 25, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at: </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/OCT.25.101.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/OCT.25.101.pdf</font></a></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA164');"><img id="icon_10SA164" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA164, In re: People v. McKeel" /></a>
-			10SA164, In re: People v. McKeel&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA164" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 09CR4595 (Hon. Deborah Grohs)</p>
-<p><strong>In Re:</strong></p>
-<p><strong>Plaintiff:</strong></p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p><strong>Defendant:</strong></p>
-<p>Todd McKeel.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-size: 10pt">The People of the State of Colorado seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order granting Todd McKeel&rsquo;s motion for a bench trial over the People&rsquo;s objection.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On May 27, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent McKeel is directed to file a written answer by June 28, 2010; the People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<p>On October 18, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp;The opinion can be found at:</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA164.pdf"><font color="#800080">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA164.pdf</font></a></div>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA244');"><img id="icon_10SA244" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA244, In re: Morales-Perez v. CDOC, Parole Division  " /></a>
-			10SA244, In re: Morales-Perez v. CDOC, Parole Division  &nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA244" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 10CV264 (Hon. Christopher Cross)</p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;<strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">In Re</span></strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin"><br />
-<br />
-<strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">Petitioner:</span></strong><br />
-<br />
-Roberto M. Morales-Perez,<br />
-<br />
-<b>v.</b><br />
-<br />
-<b>Respondents:</b><br />
-<br />
-Colorado Department of Corrections, Parole Division, by and through the Executive Director, Jeaneene Miller, and Director of Corrections and Grayson Robinson, Sheriff of the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">Synopsis:</span><br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt">Morales-Perez seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying his petition for a </span><span style="font-size: 9pt">writ of habeas, without a hearing.&nbsp; <span style="color: black">Morales-Perez claimed had been held </span>on a parole violation for over 500 days without a hearing.&nbsp; The district court found that 17-2-103.5 provides, in pertinent part, that the parole hearing shall be delayed until felony charges are resolved, and concluded that <span style="color: black">Morales-Perez </span>could not be entitled to release pending the hearing.<br />
-</span></span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin"><span style="color: black; font-size: 9pt">On July 23, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. The Colorado Department of Corrections Parole Division is directed to file a written answer on or before August 12, 2010.&nbsp; Morales-Perez has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></span></p>
-<p>On September 23, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule and dismissing the case.&nbsp; The matter was returned to the Arapahoe County District Court.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA30');"><img id="icon_10SA30" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA30, In re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael" /></a>
-			10SA30, In re: Smith, Donald v. Jeppsen, Michael&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA30" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 08CV671 (Hon. Charles Pratt)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Donald Francis Smith,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Michael D. Jeppsen and Virginia S. Benincosa.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Donald Francis Smith seeks a rule to show cause ordering the trial court to allow him to assert his claim for medical expenses based upon the vale of services provided to him &ndash; i.e., the amount billed by his treatment providers, rather than the amount paid, which is the same issue raised in Tucker v. Volunteers of America, 09SC20.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On February 4, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Michael Jeppsen is directed to provide a written answer on or before March 1, 2010.Petitioner Smith is directed to reply by March 29, 2010. Oral argument will be held on April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On June 4, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to file simultaneous Supplemental Opening&nbsp;Briefs addressing the impact, if any, of House Bill 10-1168 no later than June 24, 2010; and following the Opening Briefs simultaneous Supplemental Answer Briefs to be filed no later than July 14, 2010. </span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On September 10, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued.&nbsp; The ruling of the trial court was vacated and the case was remanded to the Arapahoe County District Court to consider the effect, if any, of the amendment to Part 1 of article 1 of title 10, Colorado Revised Stautes, by the addition of new section 10-1-135. </span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA183');"><img id="icon_10SA183" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA183, In re: Tidrick v. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County" /></a>
-			10SA183, In re: Tidrick v. Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA183" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Jefferson County, 10CV800 (Hon. Christopher Munch)</p>
-<p><strong>In Re:</strong></p>
-<p><strong>Plaintiff:</strong></p>
-<p>Abigal B. Tidrick,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p><strong>Defendants: </strong></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado; Associated Industries, Inc., a dissolved Colorado corporation and successor to the Olinger Corporation, a dissolved Colorado corporation and successor to Geo. W. Olinger, Inc., a dissolved Colorado corporation; R. M. Crane, E.B. Dill, and C.T. Flynn as the last acting members of the Board of Directors of Associated Industries, Inc.; Bryan L. Birr; Compass Bank, a Alabama corporation; Colorado Credit Union, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and and all unknown persons who claim any interst in the subject matter of this action.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">Synopsis:</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">Petitioner Bryan L. Birr seeks to compel the Respondent District Court to allow the petitioner to file his answer and counterclaims without the payment of filing fees or other costs associated with the prosecution and defense of his claims or, in the alternative, to prohibit the district court from considering home equity in a remanded determination of indigency.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">On June 16, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered that a Rule to Show Cause issue.&nbsp;Respondents Honorable Christopher J. Munch and Abigal B. Tidrick are directed to answer, in writing, on or before July 16, 2010, why the relief requested in the petition should not be granted.&nbsp;Petitioner Bryan L. Birr has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin">On September 9, 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause and dismissing the case with leave to refile another petition after additional information is submitted to the Jefferson County District Court and the district court reconsiders the indigency determination. </span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA177');"><img id="icon_10SA177" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA177, In re: Fesmire v. Haddonstone " /></a>
-			10SA177, In re: Fesmire v. Haddonstone &nbsp;&nbsp;Jul 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA177" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Pueblo County, 08CV886 (Hon. Larry Schwartz)</p>
-<p><strong>In Re:</strong></p>
-<p><strong>Plaintiffs:</strong></p>
-<p>Louis M. Fesmire and Laurie J. Fesmire,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p><strong>Defendants:</strong></p>
-<p>Haddonstone (USA) Ltd., a Colorado corporation and Christopher Fenwick.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-<span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Haddonstone (USA) LTD.seeks relief from the district court&rsquo;s order finding that Louis Fesmire, a member of Fesmire LLC, a limited liability company, was not in the employ of Haddonstone, for whom Fesmire LLC had contracted to perform services, and therefore is not limited to $15,000 damages pursuant to C.R.S. 8-41-401(3).</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On June 9, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. Louis Fesmire is directed to file a written answer by July 9, 2010.&nbsp; Haddonstone has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On July 12, 2010, the petitioner filed a&nbsp;Notice of Resolution. On July&nbsp;20, 2010, the supreme court discharged the rule, dismissed the original proceeding&nbsp;and returned the matter to the Pueblo County District Court. </span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA58');"><img id="icon_10SA58" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA58, In re: The Foundation for Knowledge v. Interactive Design " /></a>
-			10SA58, In re: The Foundation for Knowledge v. Interactive Design &nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA58" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 09CV2525 (Hon. Marilyn Antrim)</p>
-<p>In re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The Foundation for Knowledge in Development d/b/a Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation, a Colorado 501(c)(3) Public Charity,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendants:</p>
-<p>Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation, and Rick DiNobile.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioners Interactive Design Consultants, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation, and Rick Di Nobile, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; they seek a ruling that, as citizens of Rhode Island, they have insufficient contacts with Colorado to subject them to jurisdiction in this forum.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On February 24, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent, The Foundation for Knowledge in Development d/b/a Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation, is directed to provide a written answer by March 26, 2010.&nbsp; petitioners have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-On June 28, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion affirming the order.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:<a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/JUN.28.10.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2010/JUN.28.10.pdf</a></span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA34');"><img id="icon_10SA34" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA34, In re: Radil, Jennifer v. National Union Fire" /></a>
-			10SA34, In re: Radil, Jennifer v. National Union Fire&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA34" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Park County, 01CV81 (Hon. Stephen Groome)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Counterclaim-Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Jennifer Radil,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Counterclaim-Defendant:</p>
-<p>National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Company seeks relief from the Park County district court&rsquo;s order to compel arbitration and finding that whether Respondent Jennifer Radil waived her right to arbitrate is an arbitrable issue.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On February 8, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Radil is directed to provide a written answer by March 10, 2010; Petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><br />
-On June 28, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute in part and discharging the rule&nbsp;in part.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA34.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2010/10SA34.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA39');"><img id="icon_10SA39" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA39, In re: People v. Hamm, Norman" /></a>
-			10SA39, In re: People v. Hamm, Norman&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA39" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>County Court, City and County of Denver, 09GS184264 (Hon. Clarisse Gonzales)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>DefendantL</p>
-<p>Norman Hamm.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">In the underlying case, Norman Hamm is charged with committing crimes against the victim, R.T., who was treated as a patient at St. Anthony Hospital, which is operated and managed by Petitioner Centura Health Corporation.&nbsp; Petitioner seeks relief from a subpoena issued by the Denver County Court ordering St. Anthony to produce R.T.&rsquo;s medical records without first properly addressing and resolving with R.T. the issue of provider/patient privilege.&nbsp; </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On February 8, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents the Hon. Clarisse M. Gonzales and Norman Hamm are directed to provide a written answer on or before March 1, 2020; petitioner Centura health Corporation has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><br />
-On June 24, 2010. the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued.&nbsp; The matter was returned to the County Court for the City and County of Denver.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA50');"><img id="icon_10SA50" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA50, In re the Marriage of: Nutt and Nutt" /></a>
-			10SA50, In re the Marriage of: Nutt and Nutt&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA50" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Douglas County, 07DR51 (Hon. Richard Caschette)</p>
-<p>In re the Marriage of:</p>
-<p>Petitioner:</p>
-<p>Carolyn V. Nutt,</p>
-<p>and</p>
-<p>Respondent:</p>
-<p>Eric W. Nutt.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Eric Nutt, the father in this post-decree dissolution case, seeks relief from the trial court&rsquo;s order requiring disclosure of his mental health records and finding that he had impliedly waived privilege by virtue of his motion for modification of parental responsibilities.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On February 18, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule and order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Carolyn Nutt is directed to provide a written answer by March 22, 1010.&nbsp; petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><br />
-On June 24, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause, dismissing the case and returning the case to the Douglas County District Court.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA87');"><img id="icon_10SA87" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA87, In re: Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek" /></a>
-			10SA87, In re: Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA87" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Water Division 2, 98CW80 (Hon. Dennis Maes)</p>
-<p>In Re Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Cherokee Metropolitan District:</p>
-<p><strong>Petitioner:</strong></p>
-<p>Cherokee Metropolitan District,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p><strong>Respondents:</strong></p>
-<p>Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer for the State of Colorado; Steve Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2; and Colorado Ground Water Management Commission.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Cherokee Metropolitan District seeks relief from an order of the water court denying its motion to dismiss Respondent Upper Black Squirrel&rsquo;s motion for a declaratory judgment. &nbsp;Cherokee contends that the water court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the interpretation of a contract between it and UBS since contract interpretations is not a water matter pursuant to section 37-92-203(1), C.R.S., and no water matter in the case is currently pending before the water court allowing it to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the contract matter.&nbsp; </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On April 1, 2010, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management &nbsp;District; Dick Wolfe, State Engineer for the State of Colorado; Steve Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2; and Colorado Ground Water Commission are directed to provide a written answer on or before May 3, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner Cherokee has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to file a reply.</span></div>
-<p><br />
-On June 24, 2010, the supreme court issued an order discharging the rule to show cause, and dismissing the case.&nbsp; The matter was returned to the district court for Water Division 2.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA91');"><img id="icon_09SA91" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA91, In re: People v. Spykstra" /></a>
-			09SA91, In re: People v. Spykstra&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA91" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Park County (Hon. Stephen A. Groome)</p>
-<p>In re:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Malinda E. Spykstra</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioner, the People of the State of Colorado, requested that the court issue a rule to show cause why the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant Malinda E. Spykstra's request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum requiring the named victim in the underlying sexual assault case and her parents to allow defendant's expert into the parents' home to inpsect their computers and to produce personal emails between the victim and her parents.</p>
-<p>On April 24, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Spykstra is directed to provide a written answer on or before May 26, 2009.&nbsp; The People&nbsp;have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>The court has solicited <a href="/Courts/Supreme_Court/Amicus.cfm">amicus briefs</a> in this case.</p>
-<p>On June 21, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; Opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA91.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA91.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA216');"><img id="icon_09SA216" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA216, In re the Marriage of: Weis v. Weis" /></a>
-			09SA216, In re the Marriage of: Weis v. Weis&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA216" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 05DR3992 (Hon. Jann DuBois)</p>
-<p>In Re the Marriage of:</p>
-<p>Petitioner:</p>
-<p>Craig Weis,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Respondent:</p>
-<p>Melanie Weis, n/k/a Melanie Bergeron.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Petitioner Melanie Bergeron seeks relief from the El Paso County Court's order holding her in county jail pursuant to a contempt order for her failure to pay certain debts that petitioner contends were subject to an automatic stay of the bankruptcy code.</p>
-<p>On August 10, 2009, the supreme court ordered that petitioner should be released from jail.&nbsp; It further issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; respondents the Honorable Jann DuBois and Craig Weis are directed to provide a written answer on or before August 31.&nbsp; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-On June 7, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA216.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA216.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA128');"><img id="icon_10SA128" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA128, In re: People v. Perez, Jorge" /></a>
-			10SA128, In re: People v. Perez, Jorge&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA128" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 09CR3868 (Hon. Deborah Grohs)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Jorge Perez.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:<br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-size: 10pt">The Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) seeks relief from an order of the district court to show cause why its order to release the identity of a confidential informant in a criminal case should not be reversed.</span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On May 6, 2010, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Jorge Perez is directed to file a written answer by June 7, 2010.&nbsp; Petitioner CSPD has thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></div>
-<p><br />
-On May 21, 2010, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss.&nbsp; On May 24, 2010, the supreme court dismissed the original proceeding and returned the matter to the El Paso County District Court.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA350');"><img id="icon_09SA350" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA350, In re: People v. C.J. Day" /></a>
-			09SA350, In re: People v. C.J. Day&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA350" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Mesa County, 08CR956 (Hon. Richard Gurley)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>C.J. Day</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Petitioner C.J. Day seeks relief from two rulings of the Mesa County District Court in this sexual assault on a child prosecution.&nbsp; He contends that the court applied an enhanced sentence where he was acquitted of the predicate offenses, thereby changing in effect the statutory elements required for a pattern of abuse sentence enhancer.&nbsp; Specifically, he argues that the court erred in sentencing him according to the guidelines set for pattern of abuse where he was only found guilty of two counts of attempted sexual assault on a child.</p>
-<p>On December 7, 2009, the supreme court issued an order and rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent the People of the State of Colorado is directed to provide a written answer on or before January 4, 2010. &nbsp;petitioner Day has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>&nbsp;On May 10, 2010, the supreme court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA350.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA350.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('10SA75');"><img id="icon_10SA75" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 10SA75, In re: People v. Owens, Sir Mario" /></a>
-			10SA75, In re: People v. Owens, Sir Mario&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_10SA75" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR705 (Hon. Gerald Rafferty)</p>
-<p>In re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Sir Mario Owens</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Sir Mario Owens sought relief from a trial court order finding that it could only grant extensions of time &ldquo;until such point in time as would allow this [district] court to consider and rule on the [post-conviction] motion,&rdquo; which represented a departure from its previous order finding authority to grant extensions of time for the filing of post-conviction motions provided Owens demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, even if such extensions took the post-conviction process beyond the two-year period contemplated in section 16-12-208(3), C.R.S.&nbsp; Owens asks the court to incorporate review of the second order into its ongoing review of the first order.&nbsp; </span></p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On March 19, 2010, the supreme court granted the petition.&nbsp; No additional briefing is requested.&nbsp; The automatic stay is lifted in whole.</span></div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size: 10pt">On May 6, 2010, the supreme court issued an order dismissing the case. </span></div>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA257');"><img id="icon_09SA257" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA257, In re: Rocky Mountain Bank v. France" /></a>
-			09SA257, In re: Rocky Mountain Bank v. France&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA257" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Certification of Question of State Law, United States&nbsp;Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado,<br />
-09-16609-SBB</p>
-<p>In re:</p>
-<p>Rocky Mountain Bank, Movant,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Carl Nelson France and Jamie H. France,&nbsp;Debtors,</p>
-<p>&nbsp;and</p>
-<p>Douglas&nbsp;E. Larson, Trustee.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>On September 10, 2009, the supreme court accepted the following certified question of law from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado:</p>
-<p>Whether a financing statement, which identifies the individual debtor's correct first and last name, only, but does not include the debtor's middle initial or middle name and thereby does not indetify the debtor's full legal name, sufficiently provides the name of the debtor consistent with Colo. Rev. Stat. section 4-9-503(a)(4)(A) so as to establish a perfected and enforceable secured claim.</p>
-<p>The Trustee's opening brief is due on or before October 13, 2009.&nbsp; The Bank's answer brief shall be filed within 30 days from receipt of the opening brief.&nbsp; The Trustee's reply brief may be filed within 14 days from receipt of the answer brief.</p>
-<p>On January 20, 2010 the Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss.&nbsp; On January 22, 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the Certification of Question of Law.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA144');"><img id="icon_09SA144" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA144, In re: Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties" /></a>
-			09SA144, In re: Goodman Associates, LLC v. WP Mountain Properties&nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA144" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Eagle County, (Hon. Robert Moorhead)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Goodman Associates, LLC,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>WP Mountain Properties, LLC.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioner Goodman Associates, LLC&nbsp;seeks relief from the Eagle County District Court's order setting aside the default judgment it previously had granted in favor of Goodman Associates and against WP Mountain Properties, LLC.</p>
-<p>On June 17, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent WP Mountain Properties is directed to provide a written answer on or before July 7, 2009.&nbsp; Petitioner has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>On January 11, 2010, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA144.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA144.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA282');"><img id="icon_09SA282" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA282, In re: People v. Almeyda, Edwin " /></a>
-			09SA282, In re: People v. Almeyda, Edwin &nbsp;&nbsp;Jan 2010<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA282" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 87CR1417 (Hon. Deborah Grohs)<br />
-District Court, Fremont County, 88CR137 &amp; 88CR81 (Hon. Julie Marshall)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Edwin G. Almeyda</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioner Edwin Almeyda seeks an order to show cause why his sentences in two Fremont County cases should not be declared fully served.&nbsp; Almeyda was convicted in 1988 in three separate matters -- two in Fremont County and one in El Paso County. &nbsp;Pursuant to section 17-22.5-101, C.R.S., the DOC construed the sentences as one continuous 31 year sentence.&nbsp; In March 2001, he was granted parole, and in March 2003 parole was revoked.&nbsp; Almeyda argues, and the El Paso District Court found, that he could not be reincarcerated for more than 5 years, and that he has served his sentences in full.</p>
-<p>On September 30, 2009, the supreme court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Mary Carlson, Director of CDOC Time and Release Operations, is directed to provide a written answer on or before October 30, 2009 why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Almeyda has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>On January 11, 2010, the supreme court issued an order making the rule absolute; ordering the Director of the Department of Corrections CDOC Time and Release Operations to correct her records&nbsp;to indicate that all of the sentences&nbsp;are considered fully served and discharged&nbsp;and to notify all state, local agencies and officials.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA280');"><img id="icon_09SA280" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA280, In re: People v. Ray, Robert" /></a>
-			09SA280, In re: People v. Ray, Robert&nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA280" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Arapahoe County, 06CR697 (Hon. Gerald Rafferty)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Robert Keith Ray</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioner Robert Keith Ray seeks issuance of a stay in this death penalty case until the court rules in <em>People v. Sir Mario Owens</em>, 08SA402, and an order instructing the district court to allow the time permitted by Crim. P. 32.2 to file any post-trial motions.&nbsp; Specifically, he requests that imposition of a death sentence, which triggers the&nbsp;statutory non-extendable two year deadline for completing all postconviction and appellate litigation&nbsp;pursuant to section 16-12-208, C.R.S.,&nbsp;should be stayed here until the court determines in the <em>Owens</em> matter whether the &quot;no extension&quot; provision of the two-year deadline is constitutional.&nbsp; He also requests the supreme court to determine whether Judge Rafferty's ruling in the <em>Owens</em> case that the &quot;no&nbsp;extensions&quot; provision of the Unitary Review System is unconstitutional comepls him to formally enter the same ruling in his matter.&nbsp; Finally,&nbsp;he asks the supreme court&nbsp;to determine whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction when it made motions for new trial due two weeks prior to sentencing even though Crim P. 32.2 provides that the defendant may file&nbsp;such motions no later than 15 days after the imposition of a sentence.</p>
-<p>On September 30, 2009, the supreme court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief shold not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent The Honorable Gerald J. Rafferty and the People of the State of Colorado are directed to provide a written answer on or before October 30, 2009.&nbsp; Petitioner Ray has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>On December 14, 2009, the Supreme Court Dismissed as having been improvidently Granted.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA247');"><img id="icon_09SA247" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA247, In re: People v. Shirley, Darin " /></a>
-			09SA247, In re: People v. Shirley, Darin &nbsp;&nbsp;Dec 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA247" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Broomfield County, 08CR115 (Hon. John Popovich Jr.)<br />
-<br />
-In Re:</p>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Plaintiff:</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">The People of the State of Colorado</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">v.</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Defendant:</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Darin Robert Shirley</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</div>
-<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt">Synopsis:</div>
-<p>&nbsp;The People seek relief from the district court's order in this aggravated incest case that their endorsed and subpoenaed expert witness could not testify in the People's case in chief, but only as a rebuttal witness, and only after an offer of proof to determine whether the testimony is rebuttal.</p>
-<p>On August 31, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested releief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Darin Shirley is directed to provide a written answer on or before September 30, 2009.&nbsp; The People have 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;</p>
-<p>On December&nbsp;10, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order vacating the limitation the district court imposed upon the testimony of the prosecution&rsquo;s expert. Dr. Varley.&nbsp;The Court also vacated the district court&rsquo;s sanction order.&nbsp;The matter was returned to the Broomfield County District Court and the Rule Made Absolute.</p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA182');"><img id="icon_09SA182" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA182, In re: People v. Nichelson, Johnathan" /></a>
-			09SA182, In re: People v. Nichelson, Johnathan&nbsp;&nbsp;Nov 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA182" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Adams County, 08CR3568 (Hon. Mark Warner)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Johnathan Nichelson</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">Nichelson seeks relief from an order of the Adam County District Court holding that it was not vested with the power to restore Nichelson&rsquo;s right to a preliminary hearing after the case had been bound over from Adams County Court.&nbsp; Thus, the District Court did not determine whether Nichelson&rsquo;s waiver of preliminary hearing in county court was rendered ineffective when a plea offer was subsequently withdrawn.&nbsp; </span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On July 17, 2009, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the relief should not be granted.&nbsp; The&nbsp;People of the State of Colorado&nbsp;are directed to file an answer on or before August 6, 2009.&nbsp; Nichelson has 20 days thereafter within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt">On November 09, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at:</span></p>
-<p><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt"><a href="/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA182.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA182.pdf</a> </span></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA179');"><img id="icon_09SA179" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA179, In re: People v. Medina, Delano" /></a>
-			09SA179, In re: People v. Medina, Delano&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA179" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Douglas County, 05CR435 (Hon. Nancy Hopf)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Medina, Delano</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 10pt">Petitioner Delano Medina seeks to compel Respondent the Department of Corrections to comply with the sentencing mittimus, which grants petitioner 325 days of presentence confinement time credit, rather than the 155 days the DOC is granting him.</span><br />
-<br />
-<span style="font-size: 10pt">On July 15, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; The respondent is directed to provide a written answer on or before August 14; the petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</span></p>
-<p><span style="font-size: 10pt">On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued and returned the matter to the Douglas County District Court.</span></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA262');"><img id="icon_09SA262" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA262, In re: Forsythe, Lynne v. Bell, Charlie" /></a>
-			09SA262, In re: Forsythe, Lynne v. Bell, Charlie&nbsp;&nbsp;Oct 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA262" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Larimer County, 08CV485 (Hon. Jolene Blair)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Lynne Forsythe</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Charlie Bell</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Petitioner Lynne Forsythe seeks relief from the trial court's pretrial ruling imposing sanctions against her and precluding her treating neurosurgeon from testifying at trial regarding the causation of her accident-related injuries and the need for recommended decompressive brain surgery.&nbsp;</p>
-<p>On September 16, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Charlie Bell is directed to provide a written answer on or before October 6, 2009 why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Petitioner Forsythe has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>On October 13, 2009 the Supreme Court received a stipulated motion to discharge the order and rule to show cause.&nbsp; On October 15, 2009 the stipulated motion was granted and the rule&nbsp;was&nbsp;discharged.&nbsp;The matter was returned to the Larimer County District Court.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA22');"><img id="icon_09SA22" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA22, In re: People in the Interest of A.H." /></a>
-			09SA22, In re: People in the Interest of A.H.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA22" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County, 2008JV184 (Judge Thomas L. Kennedy)</p>
-<p>In Re:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>In the Interest of</p>
-<p>A.H.,</p>
-<p>Petitioner:</p>
-<p>El Paso County Department of Social Services,</p>
-<p>and Concerning</p>
-<p>Respondents:</p>
-<p>A.P., G.H., R.H., and G.H.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>G.H. seeks relief from an order of the Juvenile Court adjudicating the child dependent and neglected, and continuing the removal of the child from his home, based on an admission by A.P. that the child is neglected &quot;through no fault&quot; of hers and notwithstanding a jury determination that there was insufficient evidence that G.H. neglected the child.&nbsp; On January 30, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief should not be granted.&nbsp; The El Paso Department of Human Services, the Guardian ad Litem, and A.P. are directed to file an answer on or before February 19, 2009.&nbsp; G.H. has 15 days within which to reply.</p>
-<p>&nbsp;On September 14, 2009, the court issued an opinion discharging the rule.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA22.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA22.pdf</a></p>
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA164');"><img id="icon_09SA164" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA164, In re: Carl and Linda Curtis v. Doris Stokes" /></a>
-			09SA164, In re: Carl and Linda Curtis v. Doris Stokes&nbsp;&nbsp;Sep 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA164" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, El Paso County (Hon. Thomas Kane)<br />
-<br />
-In Re:</p>
-<p>Plaintiffs:</p>
-<p>Carl Curtis and Linda Curtis</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Doris P. Stokes.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioners Carl and Linda Curtis seek relief from the trial court's orders denying their motion to amend the complaint to add exemplary damages and compelling the unrelated medical records of plaintiff Carl Curtis because the plaintiffs made a large claim for loss of essential services to their disabled child in this case arising out of a head-on collision between Mr. Curtis and Defendant Doris Stokes.</p>
-<p>On June 26, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Doris Stokes is directed to provide a written answer on or before July 16, 2009.&nbsp; Petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.<br />
-<br />
-On September 10, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued and returned the matter to the El Paso County District Court.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA19');"><img id="icon_09SA19" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA19, In re: Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker" /></a>
-			09SA19, In re: Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA19" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, City and County of Denver, 2008CV792 (Judge Herbert L. Stern III)</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Marcia Pinkstaff,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendants:</p>
-<p>Black &amp; Decker (U.S.), Inc. and Baldwin Hardware Corporation</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>Petitioners Black &amp; Decker (U.S.) Inc. and Baldwin Hardware Corporation, along with Steven M. Gutierrez, counsel for the defendant companies, seek&nbsp;relief from the district court's order striking their answer.&nbsp; Petitioners contend that the order was an abuse of discretion and that it was based on inaccurate information, an inappropriately harsh sanction not commensurate with the alleged improper conduct and disproprotionate&nbsp;to the prejudice, if any, caused to the other party, and an unfair reward to the also-culpable other party.&nbsp;&nbsp;They request reversal of the district court's order.</p>
-<p>On January 22, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents Marcia Pinkstaff and the Honorable Connie Peterson are directed to provide a written answer on or before February 23, 2009.&nbsp; Petitioners have thirty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;</p>
-<p>On June 29, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The opinion can be found at: <a href="/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA19.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA19.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA16');"><img id="icon_09SA16" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA16, In re: People v. Ruch" /></a>
-			09SA16, In re: People v. Ruch&nbsp;&nbsp;Jun 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA16" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, Douglas County, 07CR675 (Judge Paul A. King)</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado,</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Carl Daniel Ruch.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Petitioner Carl Ruch seeks relief from the district court's order remanding him to custody following his conviction on a class five felony stalking violation until such time as Mr. Ruch agrees to sign a waiver of confidentiality that the probation department requires in order to complete its presentence investigation.&nbsp; Mr. Ruch contends that the order forces him to waive his federal privacy rights and is unlawful because it is not reasonably&nbsp; necessary to accomplish preparation of the presentence report of a psychosexual evaluation, and is not otherwise supported by law.&nbsp; He requests that the order remanding him to the custody of the sheriff's department be vacated, and that the court order his release and reinstate his bond pending resolution of the action.</p>
-<p>On January 29, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents, the Honroable Paul King, the Arapahoe County District Attorney's Office, and the 18th Judicial District Probation Department, are directed to provide a written answe ron or before February 12, 2009 why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Petitioner Ruch has ten days from receipt of the asnwer within which to reply.&nbsp; The court further reversed the order remanding Ruch to the custody of the sheriff's department, and directed that upon consent of surety the previous bond shall be reinstated with all prior conditions imposed, at which time the sheriff's department shall release petitioner.&nbsp; The court ordered that the mandatory protection order pursuant to 18-1-1001, C.R.S., remains in effect.</p>
-<p>On June 25, 2009, the supreme court issued an order making the rule absolute&nbsp;and the order of the district court remanding the defendant to the custody of the sheriff without bond be&nbsp;vacated for the reason that a refusal to sign a waiver&nbsp;of rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996 (HIPPA)&nbsp;is not a lawful&nbsp;ground for discontinuing bail after a person is convicted, pending sentencing or appeal. &nbsp;</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA59');"><img id="icon_09SA59" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA59, In re: People v. Body" /></a>
-			09SA59, In re: People v. Body&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA59" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>District Court, City and County of Denver, 90CR799 (Judge Michael A. Martinez)</p>
-<p>In re:</p>
-<p>The People of the State of Colorado</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Kenneth Lee Body, Jr.</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Kenneth Lee Body, Jr. requests that the Colorado Department of Corrections be compelled to award him earned-time credit for the last eighteen years that he has served.&nbsp; He contends that the DOC has improperly withheld the credit based on its erroneous interpretation of the governing statute.</p>
-<p>On March 19, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondents the DOC and the Denver District Attorney's Office are directed to file a written answer no later than April 8, 2009 why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Petitioner Mr. Body has twenty days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.&nbsp;</p>
-<p>On May 28, 2009 the Supreme Court issued an order discharging the rule as having been improvidently issued.</p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('09SA5');"><img id="icon_09SA5" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 09SA5, In re: Berry v. Keltner" /></a>
-			09SA5, In re: Berry v. Keltner&nbsp;&nbsp;May 2009<br />
-                <div id="Case_09SA5" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>Larimer County District Court Case No. 07CV743 (Judge Jolene Blair)</p>
-<p>Plaintiff:</p>
-<p>Michelle K. Berry</p>
-<p>v.</p>
-<p>Defendant:</p>
-<p>Jennifer Keltner</p>
-<p>Synopsis:</p>
-<p>&nbsp;Petitioner Michelle Berry seeks relief from the trial court's order denying her motion for leave to endorse her treating physician as an expert witness in this personal injury case.&nbsp; berry contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to prohibit her from endorsing, as an expert witness, a treating physician who began treating her after the expert disclosure deadline, and who therefore was endorsed after the expert disclosure deadline, but before the discovery cut-off date.</p>
-<p>On January 14, 2009, the court issued a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.&nbsp; Respondent Jennifer Keltner is directed to provide a written answer on or before February 3, 2009.&nbsp; Petitioner Berry has 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.</p>
-<p>On May 26, 2009, the court issued an opinion making the rule absolute.&nbsp; The Opinion can be found at: <a href="/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA5.pdf">http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2009/09SA5.pdf</a></p>
-                    <hr />
-                </div>
-
-				<a href="javascript: void(0);" onclick="show_case('17SA32');"><img id="icon_17SA32" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/plus.png" align="absmiddle" alt="Case details for 17SA32 In re Rains, Wilson v Barber Douglas (Honorable Todd Taylor)" /></a>
-			17SA32 In re Rains, Wilson v Barber Douglas (Honorable Todd Taylor)&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />
-                <div id="Case_17SA32" style="display:none;">
-                	<span class="nodesktop"><br /></span>
-                    <p>The petitioners, Douglas Barber, personal representative of The Estate of Oliver Ezard Frascona, a/k/a Oliver E. Frascona, a/k/a Oliver Frascona; and The Real Estate School, a Colorado LLC, seek relief from the district court&rsquo;s orders of September 1, 2016.</p>
-
-<p>On February 16, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause whether the trial court erred in vacating the order issued July 28, 2016 denying the Respondent&rsquo;s motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and granting the Respondent&rsquo;s Motion for New Trial.&nbsp; The respondents, Wilson Henry Rains, natural father and heir of Tori Rains-Wedan, deceased and Bjorn John Wedan, natural father and heir of Austin Wedan, Hunter Wedan and Mason Wedan, deceased, are directed to file a written answer on or before March 8, 2017.&nbsp; The petitioners have 20 days within which to reply.</p>
-
-<p>On June 1, 2017 the Court issued the following order:</p>
-
-<p>&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Original%20Proceedings/Case%20Disposition%20Orders/17SA32.pdf">Order of Court June 1, 2017</a></p>
-
-
-                </div>
-
-		</div>
-
-
-                        </div>
-                        <div class="right-content">
-
-		<table width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" class="DarkBorder">
-			<tr>
-				<td class="RightTitle">Court Proceedings</td>
-			</tr>
-			<tr>
-				<td>
-					<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm">Supreme Court Homepage</a><br />
-					<a title="Case Announcements" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Index.cfm">Case Announcements</a><br />
-					<a title="Oral Arguments" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Oral_Arguments/Index.cfm">Oral Arguments</a><br />
-					<a title="Ballot Initiative" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Ballot_Initiative.cfm">Ballot Initiatives</a>
-				</td>
-			</tr>
-		</table>
-
-                        </div>
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-
-
-	<div style="clear:both"></div>
-    <div class="footer-spacer"></div>
-
-        <span class="fixed-footer-announce nomobile">
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/announcements/index.cfm">important announcement</a>
-        </span>
-
-
-    <span class="fixed-footer">
-        <a href="https://data.colorado.gov/Government/State-Government-Revenue-and-Expenditures-in-Color/rifs-n6ib" target="_blank">Transparency Online</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Contact/Index.cfm">Contact Us</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreters</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/FAQs/Index.cfm">FAQ</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/gallery/">Photos</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/holiday.cfm">Holidays</a>
-    </span>
-
-    <span class="mobile-footer">
-    	<span class="mobile-footer-title">Menu</span>
-
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/announcements/index.cfm" style="color:#FFF; background-color:#C30">Important Announcement</a>
-
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Index.cfm">Home</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search.cfm">Search</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm">Courts</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Index.cfm">Probation</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Index.cfm">Jury</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/Index.cfm">Self&nbsp;Help &frasl; Forms</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Index.cfm">Careers</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Index.cfm">Media</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Index.cfm">Administration</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Contact/Index.cfm">Contact us</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreters</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/FAQs/Index.cfm">FAQ</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/gallery/">Photo Gallery</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/holiday.cfm">Holiday Schedule</a>
-    </span>
-    <div style="display:none">1a</div>
-
-
-
-
-	</body>
-</html>
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b34c4c145
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/colo_example.json
@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+{
+    "provider": "content-api",
+    "count": 30227,
+    "results": [
+        {
+            "id": 1042461692,
+            "type": "document",
+            "properties": [
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                        "label": "Court"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "Colorado Supreme Court"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "p08",
+                        "label": "Date"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "July 01, 2024"
+                    ]
+                }
+            ],
+            "title": "In re Marriage of Fox",
+            "country": {
+                "id": "US",
+                "label": "Estados Unidos"
+            },
+            "detail_json": {
+                "parent": {
+                    "id": 1695583,
+                    "type": null,
+                    "parent": {
+                        "id": 14024,
+                        "type": "source",
+                        "title": "Colorado",
+                        "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                        "copyright": null,
+                        "title.en": "CO",
+                        "meta": null,
+                        "frontpage_image": null,
+                        "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                        "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                        "unpublished_source": false
+                    },
+                    "title": "Colorado Supreme Court",
+                    "subtitle": null,
+                    "alternative_key": "desc1_14024_01",
+                    "public_url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024/chapter/colorado-supreme-court-1695583",
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/chapters/1695583/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "client_url": "/search/jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024+emisor_1:01/*"
+                },
+                "id": 1042461692,
+                "type": "document",
+                "published_at": "2024-07-03",
+                "slug": "in-re-marriage-of",
+                "title": "In re Marriage of Fox",
+                "counters": {
+                    "cited_in": {
+                        "negative": 0,
+                        "positive": 0,
+                        "neutral": 0,
+                        "total": 0
+                    },
+                    "cited_authorities": 0,
+                    "versions": false,
+                    "amendments": 0
+                },
+                "is_consolidated_text": false,
+                "history_and_versions": null,
+                "expressions": [
+                    {
+                        "vid": 1042461692,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "citedAs": null,
+                        "contentAvailable": true,
+                        "isAuthorized": true,
+                        "tabConfig": {
+                            "title": "Tab",
+                            "type": "tab"
+                        },
+                        "type": null,
+                        "kindOf": []
+                    }
+                ],
+                "followable": false,
+                "reliable_lang": "en",
+                "public_url": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/in-re-marriage-of-1042461692",
+                "doc_date": "2024-07-01",
+                "country": {
+                    "id": "US",
+                    "language": "EN",
+                    "name": "United States"
+                },
+                "translatable": true,
+                "iceberg_record_info": {
+                    "iceberg_record_id": "r06sg1sk0947cna",
+                    "iceberg_record_owner": "ICBG",
+                    "iceberg_organization_id": "oupqvi"
+                },
+                "children": [],
+                "formats": [
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/pdf",
+                        "show_inline": false,
+                        "url": "pdf/1042461692",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/docx",
+                        "url": "docx/1042461692",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    }
+                ],
+                "has_plain_text": true,
+                "properties": [
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06oq53ny752l",
+                            "label": "Docket Number"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "24SC76"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06qozl99eoi12p",
+                            "label": "Decision Date"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "01 July 2024"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06p7opb445qoof",
+                            "label": "Parties"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "In re the Marriage of Elyssa M. Fox, Petitioner and Alexander L. Speaker, Respondent"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                            "label": "Court"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Colorado Supreme Court"
+                        ]
+                    }
+                ],
+                "library": {
+                    "id": 14,
+                    "title": "Case Law",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com",
+                    "type": "library",
+                    "video_library": false,
+                    "library_type": {
+                        "id": 2,
+                        "content_type": "Jurisprudencia"
+                    },
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/libraries/14/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    }
+                },
+                "abstract_is_analysis": false,
+                "abstract": null,
+                "meta": {
+                    "vincent": "/v1/vincent/vid_analysis/1042461692"
+                },
+                "source": {
+                    "id": 14024,
+                    "type": "source",
+                    "title": "Colorado",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                    "copyright": null,
+                    "title.en": "CO",
+                    "meta": null,
+                    "frontpage_image": null,
+                    "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                    "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                    "unpublished_source": false,
+                    "search_scope": "jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024",
+                    "isbn": null,
+                    "peer_reviewed": null,
+                    "description": null,
+                    "warning": null,
+                    "full_coverage_from": null,
+                    "source_description": null,
+                    "first_record_at": "1864-01-01",
+                    "last_record_at": "2024-07-01",
+                    "content_type": "Jurisprudencia",
+                    "video_source": false,
+                    "date": "2020-11-12",
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    },
+                    "language": "en",
+                    "alternate_languages": [],
+                    "publisher": null
+                }
+            }
+        },
+        {
+            "id": 1042407550,
+            "type": "document",
+            "properties": [
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                        "label": "Court"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "Colorado Supreme Court"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "p08",
+                        "label": "Date"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "July 01, 2024"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "pCitations",
+                        "label": "Citations"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        {
+                            "value": "2024 CO 56"
+                        }
+                    ]
+                }
+            ],
+            "title": "Castro v. People",
+            "country": {
+                "id": "US",
+                "label": "Estados Unidos"
+            },
+            "detail_json": {
+                "parent": {
+                    "id": 1695583,
+                    "type": null,
+                    "parent": {
+                        "id": 14024,
+                        "type": "source",
+                        "title": "Colorado",
+                        "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                        "copyright": null,
+                        "title.en": "CO",
+                        "meta": null,
+                        "frontpage_image": null,
+                        "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                        "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                        "unpublished_source": false
+                    },
+                    "title": "Colorado Supreme Court",
+                    "subtitle": null,
+                    "alternative_key": "desc1_14024_01",
+                    "public_url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024/chapter/colorado-supreme-court-1695583",
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/chapters/1695583/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "client_url": "/search/jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024+emisor_1:01/*"
+                },
+                "id": 1042407550,
+                "type": "document",
+                "published_at": "2024-07-02",
+                "slug": "castro-v-people",
+                "title": "Castro v. People",
+                "counters": {
+                    "cited_in": {
+                        "negative": 0,
+                        "positive": 0,
+                        "neutral": 0,
+                        "total": 0
+                    },
+                    "cited_authorities": 0,
+                    "versions": false,
+                    "amendments": 0
+                },
+                "is_consolidated_text": false,
+                "history_and_versions": null,
+                "expressions": [
+                    {
+                        "vid": 1042407550,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "citedAs": null,
+                        "contentAvailable": true,
+                        "isAuthorized": true,
+                        "tabConfig": {
+                            "title": "Tab",
+                            "type": "tab"
+                        },
+                        "type": null,
+                        "kindOf": []
+                    }
+                ],
+                "followable": false,
+                "reliable_lang": "en",
+                "public_url": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/castro-v-people-1042407550",
+                "doc_date": "2024-07-01",
+                "country": {
+                    "id": "US",
+                    "language": "EN",
+                    "name": "United States"
+                },
+                "translatable": true,
+                "iceberg_record_info": {
+                    "iceberg_record_id": "r06sfzxa6789qby",
+                    "iceberg_record_owner": "ICBG",
+                    "iceberg_organization_id": "oupqvi"
+                },
+                "children": [],
+                "formats": [
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/pdf",
+                        "show_inline": false,
+                        "url": "pdf/1042407550",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/docx",
+                        "url": "docx/1042407550",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    }
+                ],
+                "has_plain_text": true,
+                "properties": [
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06oq53ny752l",
+                            "label": "Docket Number"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "22SC712"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06qozl99eoi12p",
+                            "label": "Decision Date"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "01 July 2024"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06opolc4wf8y",
+                            "label": "Citation"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "2024 CO 56"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06p7opb445qoof",
+                            "label": "Parties"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Ricardo Castro, Petitioner v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                            "label": "Court"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Colorado Supreme Court"
+                        ]
+                    }
+                ],
+                "library": {
+                    "id": 14,
+                    "title": "Case Law",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com",
+                    "type": "library",
+                    "video_library": false,
+                    "library_type": {
+                        "id": 2,
+                        "content_type": "Jurisprudencia"
+                    },
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/libraries/14/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    }
+                },
+                "abstract_is_analysis": false,
+                "abstract": null,
+                "meta": {
+                    "vincent": "/v1/vincent/vid_analysis/1042407550"
+                },
+                "source": {
+                    "id": 14024,
+                    "type": "source",
+                    "title": "Colorado",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                    "copyright": null,
+                    "title.en": "CO",
+                    "meta": null,
+                    "frontpage_image": null,
+                    "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                    "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                    "unpublished_source": false,
+                    "search_scope": "jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024",
+                    "isbn": null,
+                    "peer_reviewed": null,
+                    "description": null,
+                    "warning": null,
+                    "full_coverage_from": null,
+                    "source_description": null,
+                    "first_record_at": "1864-01-01",
+                    "last_record_at": "2024-07-01",
+                    "content_type": "Jurisprudencia",
+                    "video_source": false,
+                    "date": "2020-11-12",
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    },
+                    "language": "en",
+                    "alternate_languages": [],
+                    "publisher": null
+                }
+            }
+        }
+    ],
+    "properties": []
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.compare.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.compare.json
index a5997d6e1..eeb64b576 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.compare.json
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.compare.json
@@ -1,22 +1,26 @@
 [
   {
-    "case_dates": "2023-11-16",
-    "case_names": "Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2023/22CA1791-PD.pdf",
-    "precedential_statuses": "Published",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-16",
+    "case_names": "The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of T.C., Jr., a Child, and Concerning L.N.P. and T.C.",
+    "download_urls": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-ex-rel-t-1035297640/content",
+    "precedential_statuses": "Unknown",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "22CA1791",
+    "docket_numbers": "23CA1539",
+    "citations": "",
+    "parallel_citations": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2023-11-16",
-    "case_names": "Chance Gresser v. Banner Health",
-    "download_urls": "https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2023/22CA1502-PD.pdf",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-16",
+    "case_names": "Andrew Ortiz v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company",
+    "download_urls": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/ortiz-v-progressive-direct-1035272272/content",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "22CA1502",
+    "docket_numbers": "23CA0292",
+    "citations": "2024 COA 54",
+    "parallel_citations": "",
     "case_name_shorts": ""
   }
 ]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.html b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.html
deleted file mode 100644
index ca23eda2d..000000000
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,749 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
-
-    <head><script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scriptsdir/cfform.js"></script>
-<script type="text/javascript" src="/CFIDE/scriptsdir/masks.js"></script>
-
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
-    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
-
-
-
-
-        <title>Colorado Judicial Branch - Courts - Court of Appeals - Case Announcements</title>
-
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-small.css" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)" />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-small.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-small.css" media="only screen and (max-width:640px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-medium.css" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)" />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-medium.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-medium.css" media="only screen and (min-width:641px) and (max-width:1019px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/main-large.css" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/header-large.css?v=1.0" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/navigation-large.css" media="only screen and (min-width:1020px)"  />
-        <!--[if lte IE 8]>
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="/assets/scripts/respond.min.js"></script>
-        <![endif]-->
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/global.css" />
-
-        <link href='https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:400,300,700' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' />
-        <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/css/Print.css" media="print" />
-        <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/icons/favicon_public.ico" />
-        <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/images/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png"/>
-
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/jquery-1.11.0.min.js"></script>
-        <script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/global-scripts.js"></script>
-
-		<!-- PNotify -->
-  		<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/PNotify.js"></script>
-  		<link href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/css/PNotifyBrightTheme.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-		<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.courts.state.co.us/assets/scripts/PNotifyButtons.js"></script>
-
-
-
-        <!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
-          <script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-JRF3NE5J80"></script>
-          <script>
-            window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
-            function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
-            gtag('js', new Date());
-
-            gtag('config', 'G-JRF3NE5J80');
-          </script>
-
-
-
-<script type="text/javascript">
-<!--
-    _CF_checkCFForm_1 = function(_CF_this)
-    {
-        //reset on submit
-        _CF_error_exists = false;
-        _CF_error_messages = new Array();
-        _CF_error_fields = new Object();
-        _CF_FirstErrorField = null;
-
-
-        //display error messages and return success
-        if( _CF_error_exists )
-        {
-            if( _CF_error_messages.length > 0 )
-            {
-                // show alert() message
-                _CF_onErrorAlert(_CF_error_messages);
-                // set focus to first form error, if the field supports js focus().
-                if( _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].type == "text" )
-                { _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].focus(); }
-
-            }
-            return false;
-        }else {
-            return true;
-        }
-    }
-//-->
-</script>
-<script type="text/javascript">
-<!--
-    _CF_checkfrm_Search = function(_CF_this)
-    {
-        //reset on submit
-        _CF_error_exists = false;
-        _CF_error_messages = new Array();
-        _CF_error_fields = new Object();
-        _CF_FirstErrorField = null;
-
-
-        //display error messages and return success
-        if( _CF_error_exists )
-        {
-            if( _CF_error_messages.length > 0 )
-            {
-                // show alert() message
-                _CF_onErrorAlert(_CF_error_messages);
-                // set focus to first form error, if the field supports js focus().
-                if( _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].type == "text" )
-                { _CF_this[_CF_FirstErrorField].focus(); }
-
-            }
-            return false;
-        }else {
-            return true;
-        }
-    }
-//-->
-</script>
-</head>
-
-	<body>
-    	<a href="#main-content" class="skip-content">Skip to main content</a>
-
-
-
-    <div class="header-announcement"><a href='/newsite.cfm'>New Judicial Website coming! Click here to read about this exciting news!</a></div>
-	<div class="header-top">
-    	<div class="header-mobile-left"></div>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="header-mobile-right"></a>
-        <div class="inner-header">
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="home-link"></a>
-            <div class="searchbar">
-                <form name="frm_Search" id="frm_Search" action="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search/index.cfm" style="margin:0;" method="get" class="MainSearch">
-                	<input type="submit" name="name" value="" style="float:right" />
-                    <input name="q" type="text" id="q" value="Search" onclick="if(this.value == 'Search'){this.value = '';}" onblur="if(this.value == ''){this.value = 'Search';}" style="float:right" />
-                </form>
-            </div>
-        </div>
-    </div>
-
-    <div id="headerDisplay">
-
-        <div id="headercontainer">
-            <div id="header">
-                <ul>
-                    <li class="noscreen"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us">Home</a></li>
-                    <li class="noscreen"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search.cfm">Search</a></li>
-                    <li class="current"><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" class="tab">Courts</a>
-                    <ul>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/Choose.cfm">Trial Courts by County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/District/Choose.cfm">Trial Courts by District</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Index.cfm">Supreme Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Index.cfm">Court of Appeals</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Water/Index.cfm">Water Courts</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Denver_Juvenile/Index.cfm">Denver Juvenile Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Denver_Probate/Index.cfm">Denver Probate Court</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/County/WeekendBondHearing.cfm">Weekend Bond Hearing</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Education/Index.cfm">Educational Resources</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/">Livestreaming</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Index.cfm" class="tab">Probation</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/County/Choose.cfm">By County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Denver_Juvenile/Index.cfm">Denver Juvenile Probation</a></li>
-                         <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Resources.cfm">Resources</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Index.cfm" class="tab">Jury</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/County/Choose.cfm">By County</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/District/Choose.cfm">By District</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Jury_Commissioners.cfm">List of Jury Commissioners</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Employer.cfm">Information for Employers</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/FAQs.cfm">Jury FAQs</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/jury/video/ColoradoJuror.mp4">Colorado Jury Service Video</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/Index.cfm" class="tab">Self&nbsp;Help&nbsp;&frasl;&nbsp;Forms</a>
-                    <ul>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/Index.cfm">All Court Forms and Instructions</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/Espanol/Index.cfm">Formularios e instrucciones judiciales en espa&ntilde;ol</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/adoption/">Adoption</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/appeals/">Appeals</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/bonds/">Bonds</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/criminalcases/">Criminal Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/extremeriskprotectionorders/">Extreme Risk Protection Orders</a></li>
-                    	<li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/family/">Family Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/guardianconserv/">Guardianship &amp; Conservatorship</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/housing/">Housing Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/judgeandgarnish/">Judgments &amp; Garnishments</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/money/">Money Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/namechange/">Name Changes</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/protectionorders/">Protection Orders</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/sealingrecords/">Sealing Records</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/smallclaims/">Small Claims Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/estate/">Trusts, Estates &amp; Wills</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/watercases/">Water Cases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=jp3dnad">Dependency &amp; Neglect Advisement</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Index.cfm" class="tab">Careers</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Opportunities.cfm">Career Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Internship.cfm">Internship Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Judge.cfm">Judge Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreter Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Volunteer.cfm">Volunteer Opportunities</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Benefits.cfm">Benefits</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Descriptions.cfm">Job Descriptions</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/FAQs.cfm">Career FAQs</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Index.cfm" class="tab">Media</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Press_Releases.cfm">Press Releases</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm">Recent Orders &amp; Opinions of Interest</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Alerts.cfm">Media Alerts</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Appointments.cfm">Judge Appointments</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Law_School.cfm">Law School for Journalists</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Section.cfm?Section=pubacag">Access Guide to Public Records</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Link_Request.cfm">Web Link Request</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                    <li ><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Index.cfm" class="tab">Administration</a>
-                    <ul>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=pa">Court Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=exec">Executive Division</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=finan">Financial Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=hr">Human Resources</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=jbits">Information Technology Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Division.cfm?Division=prob">Probation Services</a></li>
-                        <li><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/committees/index.cfm">SCAO Committees</a></li>
-                    </ul>
-                    </li>
-                </ul>
-            </div>
-        </div>
-
-    </div>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-            <div id="main-wrapper">
-                <div id="main-content">
-
-    <span class="BreadcrumbsMobile">
-
-            <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="Breadcrumbs" style="padding-left:0px;">Home</a>
-
-
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" title="Courts" class="Breadcrumbs">Courts</a>
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Index.cfm" class="Breadcrumbs">Court of Appeals</a>
-		<span class="Breadcrumbs_Selected">Case Announcements</span>
-
-
-    </span>
-    <div style="clear:both"></div>
-
-                    <div class="wrapper-full">
-                        <div class="center-content-left">
-
-    <span class="BreadcrumbsLarge">
-
-
-            	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us" class="Breadcrumbs" style="padding-left:0px;">Home</a>
-
-
-
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm" title="Courts" class="Breadcrumbs">Courts</a>
-		<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Index.cfm" class="Breadcrumbs">Court of Appeals</a>
-		<span class="Breadcrumbs_Selected">Case Announcements</span>
-
-
-    </span>
-    <div style="clear:both"></div>
-
-
-		<span class="Title">Court of Appeals Case Announcements</span><br />
-
-        <span class="SubTitle">Future Case Announcements</span>
-        <br />
-
-        <p align="center"><a href="/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Court_Of_Appeals/Web%20Doc/11-16-23%20.pdf">November 16, 2023</a></p>
-
-<p align="center"><strong><u>P U B L I S H E D&nbsp; O P I N I O N S</u></strong></p>
-
-<p>22CA1502 Chance Gresser v. Banner Health</p>
-
-<p>22CA1791 Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC</p>
-
-<p align="center"><strong><u>U N P U B L I S H E D&nbsp; O P I N I O N S</u></strong></p>
-
-<p>19CA2317 People v. Isaac David Davis</p>
-
-<p>21CA0741 People v. Eric Patrick Brandt</p>
-
-<p>21CA1061 People v. Sheri Lynn Espinoza</p>
-
-<p>21CA2068 People v. Jamale D. Townsell</p>
-
-<p>22CA0533 People v. Russell Edward Blair</p>
-
-<p>22CA1413 People v. Harley David Sharp</p>
-
-<p>22CA1457 People v. Daniel Keith Duffield</p>
-
-<p>22CA1473 &amp; 22CA1984 Jimmy Guire II v. Western Fuels-Colorado LLC</p>
-
-<p>22CA1710 Marriage of Pittman</p>
-
-<p>22CA1783 People v. Sierra Suzanne Pantoja</p>
-
-<p>22CA1796 People v. Delano M. Medina</p>
-
-<p>22CA1839 Marriage of Stephens</p>
-
-<p>22CA1844 Parental Responsibilities Concerning J.B.H., a Child</p>
-
-<p>22CA1896 Stefan Sladek v. Division of Motor Vehicles</p>
-
-<p>22CA2010 Ramon Baca v. Walgreen Company</p>
-
-<p>22CA2117 People v Evan Michael Platteel</p>
-
-<p>22CA2175 Marriage of Minks</p>
-
-<p>23CA0051 Safeway, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office</p>
-
-<p>23CA0156 Michael D. Farrow v. Vickie Nira</p>
-
-<p>23CA0322 Carlos R. Hull v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office</p>
-
-<p>23CA0347 People v. Juan Lorenzo Johnson</p>
-
-<p>23CA0532 People v.&nbsp;Freddy Anthony Aguilera-Zamora&nbsp;</p>
-
-<p>23CA0717 People In Interest of E.L., Jr., and A.L., Children</p>
-
-<p>23CA1619 People In Interest of C.D.M.</p>
-
-        <br /><br />
-
-       <span class="SubTitle"> Past Case Announcements for the Court of Appeals</span><br /><br />
-
-       <form name="CFForm_1" id="CFForm_1" action="&#x2f;Courts&#x2f;Court_of_Appeals&#x2f;Case_Announcements&#x2f;Index.cfm" method="get" class="WebForm" onsubmit="return _CF_checkCFForm_1(this)">
-
-           <span style="display:block; float:left; margin-right:50px">
-               <label>Year</label><br />
-               <select name="year" style="width:200px;"  id="year" >
-
-
-                       <option value="2023" selected="selected">2023</option>
-
-                       <option value="2022" >2022</option>
-
-                       <option value="2021" >2021</option>
-
-                       <option value="2020" >2020</option>
-
-                       <option value="2019" >2019</option>
-
-                       <option value="2018" >2018</option>
-
-                       <option value="2017" >2017</option>
-
-                       <option value="2016" >2016</option>
-
-                       <option value="2015" >2015</option>
-
-                       <option value="2014" >2014</option>
-
-                       <option value="2013" >2013</option>
-
-                       <option value="2012" >2012</option>
-
-                       <option value="2011" >2011</option>
-
-                       <option value="2010" >2010</option>
-
-                       <option value="2009" >2009</option>
-
-                       <option value="2008" >2008</option>
-
-                       <option value="2007" >2007</option>
-
-                       <option value="2006" >2006</option>
-
-                       <option value="2005" >2005</option>
-
-                       <option value="2004" >2004</option>
-
-                       <option value="2003" >2003</option>
-
-                       <option value="2002" >2002</option>
-
-                       <option value="2001" >2001</option>
-
-                       <option value="2000" >2000</option>
-
-                       <option value="1999" >1999</option>
-
-                       <option value="1998" >1998</option>
-
-               </select>
-               <br /><br />
-           </span>
-
-           <span style="display:block; float:left;">
-               <label>Month</label><br />
-               <select name="month" style="width:200px;"  id="month" >
-
-                   <option value="">All</option>
-                   <option value="1" >January</option>
-                   <option value="2" >February</option>
-                   <option value="3" >March</option>
-                   <option value="4" >April</option>
-                   <option value="5" >May</option>
-                   <option value="6" >June</option>
-                   <option value="7" >July</option>
-                   <option value="8" >August</option>
-                   <option value="9" >September</option>
-                   <option value="10" >October</option>
-                   <option value="11" >November</option>
-                   <option value="12" >December</option>
-               </select>
-
-               <br /><br />
-           </span>
-           <div style="clear:both"></div>
-
-           <input name="Submit" type="submit" value="Go" id="Submit"  />
-           <br /><br />
-
-       </form>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/C7318D11-16-23 .pdf" title="November 16, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">November 16, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/0C3ADF11-09-23 .pdf" title="November 09, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">November 09, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/15232F11-02-23 .pdf" title="November 02, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">November 02, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/CE264D10-26-23 .pdf" title="October 26, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">October 26, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/6AA1F310-19-23 .pdf" title="October 19, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">October 19, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/0F304710-12-23 .pdf" title="October 12, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">October 12, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/02EF3E10-05-23 .pdf" title="October 05, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">October 05, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/5B05F209-28-23 .pdf" title="September 28, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">September 28, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/08872C09-21-23 .pdf" title="September 21, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">September 21, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/94A2CE09-14-23 .pdf" title="September 14, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">September 14, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/50536609-07-23 .pdf" title="September 07, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">September 07, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/7961D508-31-23 web.pdf" title="August 31, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">August 31, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/D5716208-24-23 .pdf" title="August 24, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">August 24, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/9A2F3308-17-23 .pdf" title="August 17, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">August 17, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/78050D08-10-23 .pdf" title="August 10, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">August 10, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/28B7E108-03-23 .pdf" title="August 03, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">August 03, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/02190007-27-23 .pdf" title="July 27, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">July 27, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/EB1D3807-20-23 .pdf" title="July 20, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">July 20, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/1EFED207-13-23 .pdf" title="July 13, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">July 13, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/2A35A507-06-23 .pdf" title="July 06, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">July 06, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/544A5C06-29-23 .pdf" title="June 29, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">June 29, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/D09F7B06-22-23 .pdf" title="June 22, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">June 22, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/D9A0F106-15-23.pdf" title="June 15, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">June 15, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/5622F506-08-23 .pdf" title="June 08, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">June 08, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/A692FC06-01-23 .pdf" title="June 01, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">June 01, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/82B2D405-25-23 .pdf" title="May 25, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">May 25, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/83018405-18-23 .pdf" title="May 18, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">May 18, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/39431405-11-23 .pdf" title="May 11, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">May 11, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/6C1E7505-04-23 .pdf" title="May 04, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">May 04, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/FCB73204-27-23 .pdf" title="April 27, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">April 27, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/4B56BE04-20-23 .pdf" title="April 20, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">April 20, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/3D96F304-13-23 .pdf" title="April 13, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">April 13, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/71A57804-06-23 .pdf" title="April 06, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">April 06, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/1D164003-30-23 .pdf" title="March 30, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">March 30, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/BFEC1B03-23-23 .pdf" title="March 23, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">March 23, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/66CBEC03-16-23 .pdf" title="March 16, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">March 16, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/ED99EC03-09-23 .pdf" title="March 09, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">March 09, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/041FA303-02-23 .pdf" title="March 02, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">March 02, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/AA99DD02-23-23 .pdf" title="February 23, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">February 23, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/91E1E302-16-23 .pdf" title="February 16, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">February 16, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/F225FB02-09-23 .pdf" title="February 09, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">February 09, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/58334302-02-23 .pdf" title="February 02, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">February 02, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/A7466E01-26-23 .pdf" title="January 26, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">January 26, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/637C2201-19-23 .pdf" title="January 19, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">January 19, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/D38D5C01-12-23 .pdf" title="January 12, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">January 12, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-               <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2023/5726B801-05-23 web.pdf" title="January 05, 2023" target="_blank" class="touchable-link">January 05, 2023</a>
-
-
-
-
-
-                        </div>
-                        <div class="right-content">
-
-
-        <span class="RightTitle">Can't Find It?</span><br />
-
-        Search Case Announcements
-        and Published Opinions<br /><br />
-        <form name="frm_Search" id="frm_Search" action="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search/index.cfm" method="get" onload="This.blur();" class="WebForm" onsubmit="return _CF_checkfrm_Search(this)">
-            <input name="q" type="text" style="width:90%"  id="q"  />
-            <input name="f" id="f"  type="hidden" value="0" />
-            <input name="s" id="s"  type="hidden" value="Court_Of_Appeals_Opinions" />
-            <br /><br />
-            <input name="btn_Submit" type="submit" value="Search" id="btn_Submit"  /><br />
-        </form>
-
-        <br />
-        <strong>Please note:</strong> All Court of Appeals' case numbers must contain 4 digits after the year and case class. (i.e. 08CA_ _ _ _)<br />Use leading zeros in cases with less than 4 digits. (i.e. 08CA0255)
-
-        <br /><br />
-
-        <span class="RightTitle">Unpublished Opinions</span><br />
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion_Request.cfm" title="Online request form">Online request form</a>
-        <br /><br />
-
-        <span class="RightTitle">Court Proceedings</span><br />
-
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Index.cfm">Court of Appeals Homepage</a><br />
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/live">Live and Archived Oral Argument Videos</a><br />
-        <a title="Oral Arguments" href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Oral_Arguments/Index.cfm">Oral Arguments</a><br />
-
-
-                        </div>
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-
-
-	<div style="clear:both"></div>
-    <div class="footer-spacer"></div>
-
-        <span class="fixed-footer-announce nomobile">
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/announcements/index.cfm">important announcement</a>
-        </span>
-
-
-    <span class="fixed-footer">
-        <a href="https://data.colorado.gov/Government/State-Government-Revenue-and-Expenditures-in-Color/rifs-n6ib" target="_blank">Transparency Online</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Contact/Index.cfm">Contact Us</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreters</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/FAQs/Index.cfm">FAQ</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/gallery/">Photos</a>
-        &nbsp; &bull; &nbsp;
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/holiday.cfm">Holidays</a>
-    </span>
-
-    <span class="mobile-footer">
-    	<span class="mobile-footer-title">Menu</span>
-
-        	<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/announcements/index.cfm" style="color:#FFF; background-color:#C30">Important Announcement</a>
-
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Index.cfm">Home</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/search.cfm">Search</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Index.cfm">Courts</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Probation/Index.cfm">Probation</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Jury/Index.cfm">Jury</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Self_Help/Index.cfm">Self&nbsp;Help &frasl; Forms</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Careers/Index.cfm">Careers</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Index.cfm">Media</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Index.cfm">Administration</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Contact/Index.cfm">Contact us</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Administration/Unit.cfm?Unit=interp">Interpreters</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/FAQs/Index.cfm">FAQ</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/gallery/">Photo Gallery</a>
-        <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/holiday.cfm">Holiday Schedule</a>
-    </span>
-    <div style="display:none">1a</div>
-
-
-
-
-	</body>
-</html>
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..401c16d9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/coloctapp_example.json
@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+{
+    "provider": "content-api",
+    "count": 64838,
+    "results": [
+        {
+            "id": 1035297640,
+            "type": "document",
+            "properties": [
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                        "label": "Court"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "Colorado Court of Appeals"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "p08",
+                        "label": "Date"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "May 16, 2024"
+                    ]
+                }
+            ],
+            "title": "People ex rel. T.C.",
+            "country": {
+                "id": "US",
+                "label": "Estados Unidos"
+            },
+            "detail_json": {
+                "parent": {
+                    "id": 1695584,
+                    "type": null,
+                    "parent": {
+                        "id": 14024,
+                        "type": "source",
+                        "title": "Colorado",
+                        "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                        "copyright": null,
+                        "title.en": "CO",
+                        "meta": null,
+                        "frontpage_image": null,
+                        "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                        "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                        "unpublished_source": false
+                    },
+                    "title": "Colorado Court of Appeals",
+                    "subtitle": null,
+                    "alternative_key": "desc1_14024_02",
+                    "public_url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024/chapter/colorado-court-of-appeals-1695584",
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/chapters/1695584/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "client_url": "/search/jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024+emisor_1:02/*"
+                },
+                "id": 1035297640,
+                "type": "document",
+                "published_at": "2024-05-18",
+                "slug": "people-ex-rel-t",
+                "title": "People ex rel. T.C.",
+                "counters": {
+                    "cited_in": {
+                        "negative": 0,
+                        "positive": 0,
+                        "neutral": 0,
+                        "total": 0
+                    },
+                    "cited_authorities": 0,
+                    "versions": false,
+                    "amendments": 0
+                },
+                "is_consolidated_text": false,
+                "history_and_versions": null,
+                "expressions": [
+                    {
+                        "vid": 1035297640,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "citedAs": null,
+                        "contentAvailable": true,
+                        "isAuthorized": true,
+                        "tabConfig": {
+                            "title": "Tab",
+                            "type": "tab"
+                        },
+                        "type": null,
+                        "kindOf": []
+                    }
+                ],
+                "followable": false,
+                "reliable_lang": "en",
+                "public_url": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-ex-rel-t-1035297640",
+                "doc_date": "2024-05-16",
+                "country": {
+                    "id": "US",
+                    "language": "EN",
+                    "name": "United States"
+                },
+                "translatable": true,
+                "iceberg_record_info": {
+                    "iceberg_record_id": "r06sdmzibb44y0",
+                    "iceberg_record_owner": "ICBG",
+                    "iceberg_organization_id": "oupqvi"
+                },
+                "children": [],
+                "formats": [
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/pdf",
+                        "show_inline": false,
+                        "url": "pdf/1035297640",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/docx",
+                        "url": "docx/1035297640",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    }
+                ],
+                "has_plain_text": true,
+                "properties": [
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06oq53ny752l",
+                            "label": "Docket Number"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "23CA1539"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06qozl99eoi12p",
+                            "label": "Decision Date"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "16 May 2024"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06p7opb445qoof",
+                            "label": "Parties"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest of T.C., Jr., a Child, and Concerning L.N.P. and T.C., Appellants."
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                            "label": "Court"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Colorado Court of Appeals"
+                        ]
+                    }
+                ],
+                "library": {
+                    "id": 14,
+                    "title": "Case Law",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com",
+                    "type": "library",
+                    "video_library": false,
+                    "library_type": {
+                        "id": 2,
+                        "content_type": "Jurisprudencia"
+                    },
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/libraries/14/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    }
+                },
+                "abstract_is_analysis": false,
+                "abstract": null,
+                "meta": {
+                    "vincent": "/v1/vincent/vid_analysis/1035297640"
+                },
+                "source": {
+                    "id": 14024,
+                    "type": "source",
+                    "title": "Colorado",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                    "copyright": null,
+                    "title.en": "CO",
+                    "meta": null,
+                    "frontpage_image": null,
+                    "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                    "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                    "unpublished_source": false,
+                    "search_scope": "jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024",
+                    "isbn": null,
+                    "peer_reviewed": null,
+                    "description": null,
+                    "warning": null,
+                    "full_coverage_from": null,
+                    "source_description": null,
+                    "first_record_at": "1864-01-01",
+                    "last_record_at": "2024-07-01",
+                    "content_type": "Jurisprudencia",
+                    "video_source": false,
+                    "date": "2020-11-12",
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    },
+                    "language": "en",
+                    "alternate_languages": [],
+                    "publisher": null
+                }
+            }
+        },
+        {
+            "id": 1035272272,
+            "type": "document",
+            "properties": [
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                        "label": "Court"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "Colorado Court of Appeals"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "p08",
+                        "label": "Date"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        "May 16, 2024"
+                    ]
+                },
+                {
+                    "property": {
+                        "id": "pCitations",
+                        "label": "Citations"
+                    },
+                    "values": [
+                        {
+                            "value": "2024 COA 54"
+                        }
+                    ]
+                }
+            ],
+            "title": "Ortiz v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.",
+            "country": {
+                "id": "US",
+                "label": "Estados Unidos"
+            },
+            "detail_json": {
+                "parent": {
+                    "id": 1695584,
+                    "type": null,
+                    "parent": {
+                        "id": 14024,
+                        "type": "source",
+                        "title": "Colorado",
+                        "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                        "copyright": null,
+                        "title.en": "CO",
+                        "meta": null,
+                        "frontpage_image": null,
+                        "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                        "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                        "unpublished_source": false
+                    },
+                    "title": "Colorado Court of Appeals",
+                    "subtitle": null,
+                    "alternative_key": "desc1_14024_02",
+                    "public_url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024/chapter/colorado-court-of-appeals-1695584",
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/chapters/1695584/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "client_url": "/search/jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024+emisor_1:02/*"
+                },
+                "id": 1035272272,
+                "type": "document",
+                "published_at": "2024-05-17",
+                "slug": "ortiz-v-progressive-direct",
+                "title": "Ortiz v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.",
+                "counters": {
+                    "cited_in": {
+                        "negative": 0,
+                        "positive": 0,
+                        "neutral": 0,
+                        "total": 0
+                    },
+                    "cited_authorities": 8,
+                    "versions": false,
+                    "amendments": 0
+                },
+                "is_consolidated_text": false,
+                "history_and_versions": null,
+                "expressions": [
+                    {
+                        "vid": 1035272272,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "citedAs": null,
+                        "contentAvailable": true,
+                        "isAuthorized": true,
+                        "tabConfig": {
+                            "title": "Tab",
+                            "type": "tab"
+                        },
+                        "type": null,
+                        "kindOf": []
+                    }
+                ],
+                "followable": false,
+                "reliable_lang": "en",
+                "public_url": "https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/ortiz-v-progressive-direct-1035272272",
+                "doc_date": "2024-05-16",
+                "country": {
+                    "id": "US",
+                    "language": "EN",
+                    "name": "United States"
+                },
+                "translatable": true,
+                "iceberg_record_info": {
+                    "iceberg_record_id": "r06sdmzox9ni90f",
+                    "iceberg_record_owner": "ICBG",
+                    "iceberg_organization_id": "oupqvi"
+                },
+                "children": [],
+                "formats": [
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/pdf",
+                        "show_inline": false,
+                        "url": "pdf/1035272272",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "mime_type": "application/docx",
+                        "url": "docx/1035272272",
+                        "original": false,
+                        "label": "Document",
+                        "isAuthorized": true
+                    }
+                ],
+                "has_plain_text": true,
+                "properties": [
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06oq53ny752l",
+                            "label": "Docket Number"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "23CA0292"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06qozl99eoi12p",
+                            "label": "Decision Date"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "16 May 2024"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "p06opolc4wf8y",
+                            "label": "Citation"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "2024 COA 54"
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06p7opb445qoof",
+                            "label": "Parties"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Andrew Ortiz, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant."
+                        ]
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "property": {
+                            "id": "k06opofdgweyj",
+                            "label": "Court"
+                        },
+                        "values": [
+                            "Colorado Court of Appeals"
+                        ]
+                    }
+                ],
+                "library": {
+                    "id": 14,
+                    "title": "Case Law",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com",
+                    "type": "library",
+                    "video_library": false,
+                    "library_type": {
+                        "id": 2,
+                        "content_type": "Jurisprudencia"
+                    },
+                    "meta": {
+                        "children": "/v1/libraries/14/children.json"
+                    },
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    }
+                },
+                "abstract_is_analysis": false,
+                "abstract": null,
+                "meta": {
+                    "citations": "/vid/ortiz-v-progressive-direct-1035272272/citations.json?include=case_hist&type=link",
+                    "vincent": "/v1/vincent/vid_analysis/1035272272"
+                },
+                "source": {
+                    "id": 14024,
+                    "type": "source",
+                    "title": "Colorado",
+                    "public_url": "http://case-law.vlex.com/source/14024",
+                    "copyright": null,
+                    "title.en": "CO",
+                    "meta": null,
+                    "frontpage_image": null,
+                    "frontpage_image_highres": null,
+                    "jurisdiction_id": "US",
+                    "unpublished_source": false,
+                    "search_scope": "jurisdiction:US+content_type:2+source:14024",
+                    "isbn": null,
+                    "peer_reviewed": null,
+                    "description": null,
+                    "warning": null,
+                    "full_coverage_from": null,
+                    "source_description": null,
+                    "first_record_at": "1864-01-01",
+                    "last_record_at": "2024-07-01",
+                    "content_type": "Jurisprudencia",
+                    "video_source": false,
+                    "date": "2020-11-12",
+                    "country": {
+                        "id": "US",
+                        "language": "EN"
+                    },
+                    "language": "en",
+                    "alternate_languages": [],
+                    "publisher": null
+                }
+            }
+        }
+    ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py b/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
index cadb13e7c..834a06b9d 100644
--- a/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
+++ b/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
@@ -98,19 +98,6 @@ class ScraperExtractFromText(unittest.TestCase):
                 {"Docket": {"docket_number": "2021-SCC-0017-CIV"}},
             ),
         ],
-        "juriscraper.opinions.united_states.state.colo": [
-            (
-                """       The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203                                  2023 CO 63 Supreme Court Case No. 23SA300""",
-                {
-                    "Citation": {
-                        "volume": "2023",
-                        "reporter": "CO",
-                        "page": "63",
-                        "type": 8,
-                    }
-                },
-            ),
-        ],
         "juriscraper.opinions.united_states.federal_special.cavc": [
             (
                 """           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS\n\n                                             NO. 22-3306\n\n                               GEORGE D. PREWITT, JR., PETITIONER,\n\n                                                  V.\n\n                                     DENIS MCDONOUGH,\n                         SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.\n\n                       Before""",