Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/05/19/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:24:08+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs on Monday, May 19, 2014.
In this tort case, the Supreme Court interpreted the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s “recreation area waiver,” CRS §24-10-106(1)(e). The Court held that a parking lot serving a public golf course can qualify as a “public facility” under the recreation area waiver. Accordingly, the court of appeals erred when it categorically held that such a parking lot does not qualify as a “public facility,” and the Court reversed the court of appeals’ holding.
The Court further held that a three-step analysis should be employed to determine whether a public facility is “located in” a “recreation area” for purposes of the recreation area waiver. First, a court examines the underlying piece of contiguous public property to identify the “putative recreation area.” Second, a court should determine whether the public entity’s primary purpose in building or maintaining that area was the promotion of recreation. Third, a court should determine whether the public facility at issue was located within the boundaries of that area. Applying this three-step analysis to the case at bar, the Court held that the golf course grounds—which include the golf course’s parking lot—is a “recreation area” and that the parking lot is “located in” this area. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for further fact-finding with regard to the remaining requirements of the recreation area waiver.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Young v. Brighton School District 27J on Monday, May 19, 2014.
In this tort case, the Supreme Court held that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s waiver provisions, listed in CRS § 24-10-106(1)(a)–(h), are not mutually exclusive. Rather, each waiver provides an alternative avenue for exposing a public entity to possible tort liability. Thus, the court of appeals erred when it held that the waiver provisions were mutually exclusive and the Court reversed this aspect of the court of appeals’ holding.
The Court also interpreted the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s “recreation area waiver,” codified at CRS §24-10-106(1)(e). It held that an injury that occurred on a walkway adjacent to a public school’s playground does not trigger the application of the recreation area waiver, because the walkway at issue did not qualify as a “public facility.” Accordingly, the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ holding that the public school district did not waive its immunity.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. A.R.L. on Monday, May 19, 2014.
In this tort case, the Supreme Court interpreted the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s “recreation area waiver,” CRS § 24-10-106(1)(e). The Court held that a collection of public school playground equipment, considered in its entirety, qualifies as a “public facility” under the recreation area waiver. Accordingly, the court of appeals erred when it held that an individual piece of playground equipment, in and of itself, qualified as a “public facility.” The Court thus affirmed the court of appeals’ holding, albeit for different reasons.
Applying the three-step analysis from Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs, 2014 CO 34, ¶ 23, the Court also held that the public facility (the playground equipment) is “located in” the “recreation area” of the playground. It remanded the case to the trial court for further fact finding with regard to the remaining requirements of the recreation area waiver.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Davis on Wednesday, May 7, 2014.
Defendant Davis was convicted by a jury of robbery, use of a firearm during a robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total 360 months’ imprisonment with three years’ supervised release. Davis appealed his conviction on three assertions of error: (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from a car in which he was a passenger, (2) the jury instructions insofar as they allowed the jury to convict him of aiding and abetting without the requisite knowledge or participation, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence concerning a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He eventually conceded the third point because of circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit affirmed on all points.
Davis was a passenger in a car driven by co-defendant Baker that was stopped after the robbery of a Radio Shack in Overland Park, Kansas. Police had been investigating a string of armed robberies and suspected that Baker’s girlfriend’s car was being used in the robberies. A GPS tracking device was installed on Baker’s girlfriend’s car without a warrant while it was parked at an apartment. This GPS tracking device and other evidence led to the arrest of Davis and Baker after the Radio Shack robbery. During police interviews, Davis confessed that he knew Baker intended to rob the Radio Shack and he saw Baker pull a gun from his waistband prior to entering the car after the robbery. During trial, Davis moved to suppress evidence found in the car, citing a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The government proceeded in trial on the theory that Davis robbed the Radio Shack at gunpoint, but noted that even if he had waited in the car as set forth by the defense, there was sufficient evidence of his aiding and abetting the robbery to support a conviction.
The second point of error was not properly preserved for review in the trial court, and the Tenth Circuit examined the contention for plain error. It found none. The general aider-and-abetter instruction given the jury adequately informed of the requirement that Davis have advance knowledge of Baker’s intent to commit a crime, and that was enough to survive a plain error challenge. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
On Monday, May 19, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.
On Monday, May 19, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued five published opinions.
St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. A.R.L.
On Friday, May 16, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

References: v. 
 §24
 v. 
 § 24
 §24
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 v.