Source: http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:30:17+00:00

Document:
14SA135, IN RE: the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR 2013–2014 #129 (“Constitutional Definition of ‘Fee’ ”) (June 2014) Ballot initiative opponents sought to deny petitioners right to submit a proposal to clarify the constitutional definition of “fee” to voters (alleging violation of single-subject rule). Court majority (5-2 vote) upheld single-subject determination and right of petitioners to submit ballot question.
O-O-X In 12CA2312 & 12CA2316 RYAN RANCH COMMUNITY v. KELLEY et al, concurred in ruling that an HOA could not “recover” assessments from property not part of the HOA by contract. In 14CA2178 ROCKY MOUNTAIN GUN OWNERS et al v. HICKENLOOPER, concurred in ruling holding plaintiffs had stated a claim challenging constitutionality of gun control legislation enacted by statute in 2013. In 15CA0582 TABOR Foundation v. Regional Transportation District, concurred that RTD need not obtain voter approval before collecting sales tax on items not previously taxed due to legislation removing statutory exemptions – ruling that a tax policy change wasn’t a change in tax policy.
concurred in ruling that the CBE did not levy a TABOR-prohibited tax when it imposed a bridge safety surcharge, but instead imposed a permissible fee despite imposing “fee” on non-users of bridges paid.
Colorado Court of Appeals reverses lower court, upholds constitutionality of Douglas County School Choice program In 14CA1816 NORTON v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD, concurred in ruling that prohibition on use of public funds “either directly or indirectly” to pay for abortions did not apply if funds were not expressly “for the purpose of” paying for abortions (ignoring that funds are fungible).
O – O – M In 12CA1116 & 12CA1117 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENT AND LABOR COALITION v. COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION, ruled that the commission complied with public notice and review requirements in conditionally approving a water project. Upheld procedural due process. In 12CA1866 IDAHO PACIFIC LUMBER CO. v. CELESTIAL LAND COMPANY LTD, concurred in ruling that indebtedness owed to an independent contractor does not constitute “earnings” for the purpose of garnishment. Upholds procedural due process. In 12CA2613 RENO v. MARKS, dissented from ruling reversing trial court denying attorney fees for agency refusal to comply with CORA request, arguing that trial courts have discretion to determine “prevailing” party relevant to award of attorney fees.
O-O-O In 11CA1005 COLORADO MEDICAL SOCIETY v. HICKENLOOPER, concurs that Colorado law permits certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to administer anesthesia without supervision by a physician (ruling reduces burdensome licensing and regulatory requirements) In 12CA1703 PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ruled that the DOR could not negate sales tax exemption in statute by administrative action. Upheld primacy of statute over unauthorized regulatory determination. In 15CA0603 ESQUIBEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1, ruled that school district director seat was properly declared “vacant” once the director was “found guilty of a felony” within the meaning of the director vacancy statute.
In 10CA2291 COLORADO ETHICS WATCH v. CLEAR THE BENCH COLORADO, ruled in favor of Colorado Ethics Watch that judges are “candidates for election” in applying campaign finance rules (despite judicial retention similarity to recall elections and phrasing of vote as yes/no ballot question).
In 15CA1066 JEFFERSON COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. JEFFCO SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1, concurred in ruling that teacher’s request for sick leave is not part of the teacher’s personnel file and thus subject to CORA disclosure.
Colorado Court of Appeals reverses lower court, upholds constitutionality of Douglas County School Choice program In 14CA1733 INDEPENDENT BANK v. PANDY, concurred in ruling that statute of limitations does not bar action to enforce prior properly rendered judgment. Upholds due process and prevents “running out the clock” on valid claims.
M-X-X In 11CA0892 CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS v. COLORADO ETHICS WATCH, ruled in favor of Colorado Ethics Watch against city motion to have campaign finance complaint reviewed by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). In 11CA1041 GRAY v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, ruled that the University of Colorado Hospital Authority is immune from liability even for willful and wanton actions resulting in death under Colorado’s Government Immunity Act (GIA), § 24-10-101 In 12CA1628 COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION v. URBINA, ruled to dismiss complaint of rulemaking procedural violations (failure to provide notice required by law) as moot due to after-the-fact passage of legislation adopting the regulations, allowing government agencies to violate the law and due process without repercussion.
In 14CA1816 NORTON v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ruled that prohibition on use of public funds “either directly or indirectly” to pay for abortions did not apply if funds were not expressly “for the purpose of” paying for abortions (ignoring that funds are fungible).
Since District/County judges rule on a much larger number of cases, many (if not most) of which do not result in published opinions – and as there are a great deal more of them appearing on the ballot – the methodology employed by Clear The Bench Colorado in reviewing judicial performance at this level relies primarily upon inputs from concerned citizens and knowledgeable parties (including attorneys, court-watchers, and sources in law enforcement) and lists specific cases only by exception. Our Know Your Judge: Citizen Input on District/County Judges 2016 page lists comments on each judge organized by judicial district. Anyone wishing to comment on any of the judges on this year’s ballot are welcome to submit comments and responsible, documented articles of reasonable length (please, no rants, slams, or diatribes) to our Know Your Judge: Citizen Input page 2016, or our Sound Off! page. Comments on any of the judicial performance evaluations are welcome, below.
Most people look for 2018 Evaluations on the 2018 page – not the 2016 Evaluations page (this one).

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