Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2012/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:51:51+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Gould on Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
The Court state that, to determine whether a particular delay violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, a four-factor test must be applied: “(1) the length of delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.” Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that Petitioner has not established a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation. “While this result is troubling given the lengthy delay from conviction to the entry of final judgment, a delay which certainly exceeded the norm of timely criminal case processing, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional speedy trial violation.” Additionally, the exclusion of the memorandum evidence was harmless because Petitioner testified about the content of the documents and the content was not disputed.
On Tuesday, February 28, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and five unpublished opinions.
Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Gray v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority on Monday, February 27, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Decedent sought treatment for epilepsy at Respondent hospital. “In the course of his withdrawal from medication, hospital staff left decedent unattended and he died after suffering a seizure. [Petitioners], decedent’s estate and family members, filed this civil rights suit” and in their complaint they alleged “that [Respondent] hospital, and affiliated doctors, nurses, and staff acting in their capacity as ’employees and/or agents’ of the hospital, deprived decedent of life without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted [Respondents]’ motion to dismiss the complaint . . . for failure to state a constitutional claim,”and Petitioners appealed.
“The conduct Petitioners allege to be directly responsible for decedent’s death is neither private nor violent. Accordingly, because the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability has no role to play in a proper resolution of Plaintiffs’ grievance,” the Court affirmed the district court’s decision.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in EEOC v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe RR on Monday, February 27, 2012.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Petitioners filed ADA discrimination charges with the EEOC, alleging discrimination based on a perceived disability after not being hired by Respondent following a conditional offer of employment and a medical screening procedure. Respondent’”s position was that it rescinded the offers based on the medical requirements and safety concerns incident to the . . . position, that it did not view either applicant as “disabled,” and that both applicants were free to apply for other positions within BNSF for which they were qualified.” Later, EEOC enhanced the scope of the investigation and issued a subpoena to Respondent requesting nationwide computer files to search for pattern and practice discrimination. Respondent did not comply with the administrative subpoena, and Petitioner requested the district court enforce it, which it declined to do.
On Monday, February 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and three unpublished opinions.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Colorado Division of Employment and Training v. Accord Human Resources, Inc. on February 27, 2012.
CRS §8-70-114(1)—Employer Tax Accounts—Assessing Unemployment Taxes—Back Taxes.
The Colorado Division of Employment and Training (Division) sought to reverse the court of appeals’ decision that CRS § 8-70-114(1) does not authorize the Division to collapse five employer accounts, combine their unemployment tax rates, and assess back taxes. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment, concluding that nothing in CRS § 8-70-114(1) gives the Division authority to combine separate employer tax accounts into one account for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes. The statute describes circumstances where individuals will be deemed to be employed by a single employing unit for purposes of paying benefits.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hall v. Moreno on February 27, 2012.
The Supreme Court held that the district court adopted a lawful redistricting scheme in accordance with constitutional criteria and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the non-constitutional factors as set forth in CRS § 16 2-1-102. The Court further held that this balancing was reasonable and supported by the evidence that was heard during the district court’s thorough, inclusive, and nonpartisan proceedings. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s order that the Colorado Secretary of State implement the adopted redistricting scheme in future congressional elections.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §8
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 § 16