SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 12 , 2006 EN BANCBailiff: Hannah Wanebo

05SA253 (1 HOUR)

Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees:

REINALDO GALLEGOS, MARIANNE GALLEGOS, HAROLD L. GALLEGOS, ELLEN GALLEGOS, and GENE J. GALLEGOS,

v.

Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION, an administrative agency of the State of Colorado; and HAROLD D. SIMPSON, in his capacity as the Colorado State Engineer, as ex officio Executive Director of the Colorado Ground Water Commission, and as a non-voting member of the Colorado Ground Water Commission,

and

Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

WILLIAM ANDERSON; LARRY L. CROISSANT; JEAN L. CROISSANT; TOWN OF GROVER c/o RICK HAYES; HEREFORD FARMS, LLC c/o Jerry Burnett; CARL A. JOHNSON; ANITA R. JOHNSON; ROD JOHNSON; JAMES M. KONIG; JANET F. KONIG; MICHAEL D. KONIG; LARRY LANG; RICHARD L. PETTINGER; LISA PETTINGER; RORY PETTINGER; ROCKY PLAINS, LLP c/o Phil Haynes; TR, INC.; TENNICK LAND AND CATTLE CO. c/o Cristie Nicklas; BCK HEATH PROPERTY, LLC c/o Burton Kross; CLARENCE W. TIETMEYER; VONDA J. TIETMEYER; CLARENCE E. TIETMEYER; SCOTT W. TIETMEYER; PAULA J. TIETMEYER; VONDA JEAN TIETMEYER; and TIETMEYER FARMS, INC,

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees:Timothy R. BuchananAlan E. CurtisKara Godbehere GoodwinTimothy R. Buchanan, P.C.

For the Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Colorado Ground Water:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralPatrick KowaleskiFirst Assistant Attorney GeneralandAlexandra L. DavisAssistant Attorney GeneralNatural Resources and Environment Section

For Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants William Anderson; Larry L. Croissant; Jean L. Croissant; Town of Grover c/o Rick Hayes; Hereford Farms, LLC c/o Jerry Burnett, et al:P. Andrew JonesBradley C. GrasmickLind, Lawrence & Ottenhoff, LLP

For Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants Charles E. Nussbaum; Dorothy L. Nussbaum; James L. Karst; Judy Karst; Kenneth Everitt, et al :Ken Copple

For Amicus Curiae Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding LLC:Anne J. CastleChristopher L. ThorneHolland & Hart, LLP

cont’d on next page

1

and

Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

CHARLES E. NUSSBAUM; DOROTHY L. NUSSBAUM; JAMES L. KARST; JUDY KARST; KENNETH EVERITT; PENNY EVERITT; PHIL MCKINLEY; DIANE MCKINLEY; DAN LOYD; DEERCO, LLC; JESSE E. LOYD; EVELYN T. LOYD; LOYD FARMS; LOYD FARMS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP; LEE A. TAPPY; FRED D. MARRICK; ROXANNE L. MARRICK; F&R MARRICK and FOUR DIAMONDS RANCH, LLC,

and

Defendants/Appellees:

EDNA B. ANDERSON, ROSELLA JESSEN, and KONIG INVESTMENTS LLC.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))

05SA253 cont’d from previous page

For Amicus Curiae Marks Butte, Frenchman, Sand Hills, Central Yuma, W-Y, Arikaree and Plains Ground Water Management Districts:Michael D. ShimminVranesh and Raisch, LLP

For Amicus Curiae Stulp Investment Co., LLC; John & Timothy Stulp, LLC; and Timothy A. Stulp:Sarah A. KlahnJason V. TurnerWhite & Jankowski, LLP

For Amicus Curiae Town of Genoa & Robert E. Boyd:David C. TaussigWhite & Jankowski, LLP

Appeal from the District Court, Weld County, 03CV1335 Docketed: September 2, 2005At Issue: June 6, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Issues for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees:

Whether, as a matter of law, a senior surface water right owner has the burden of demonstrating injury to vested water rights caused by the pumping of junior ground water rights in designated ground water basin prior to administration of junior ground water rights by the Colorado Ground Water Commission (“Commission”).

Whether, as a matter of law, a reduction in water available from the surface stream demonstrates unreasonable injury to that senior surface water right.

Whether, as a matter of law, surface diversions by a senior water right in a designated basin constitute an unreasonable method of diversion to the detriment of junior ground water rights. issues cont’d on next page

2

05SA253 issues cont’d from previous page

Whether, as a matter of law, the Commission may claim the “futile call doctrine” as justification for denying administration of junior ground water rights for the benefit of senior surface water rights in a designated basin.

Issues for the Defendants/Appellees/Cross-Appellants:

Whether the Commission is legally required to administer wells withdrawing “designated ground water” for the benefit of surface water rights adjudicated to divert “waters of ... [a] natural stream”?

Whether the doctrines of res judicata preclude the Gallegos’ claims to have wells within a designated basin curtailed for the benefit of their surface water rights?______________________________________________________________________________

3

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

05SC500 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

DANIEL GREGORY MELINA, JR.,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

))))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Jean E. DubofskyJean E. Dubofsky, P.C.andDean NeuwirthDean Neuwirth, P.C.

For the Respondent:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralCheryl HoneAssistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Appeals Unit

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA0391Docketed: August 1, 2005At Issue: June 8, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the unit of prosecution for the crime of solicitation permits a single conviction based on evidence that the defendant independently solicited two different people for the same crime?______________________________________________________________________________

4

Oral Argument: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

04SA93 ( 1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

v.

Respondent:

SUZANNE SHELL.

))))))))))

For the Petitioner:James CoyleDeputy Regulation Counsel

For the Respondent:Paul Grant

Original Proceeding in Contempt Docketed: March 18, 2004 At Issue: January 24, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether Ms. Shell was denied the due process and other protections guaranteed to her as a criminal defendant, guarantees of the state and federal constitutions, including the right to a jury trial, the right to be free from compelled pre-trial testimony, the due process and equal protection right to have her trial governed by the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, the right to be tried by a neutral fact-finder, and many others.

Whether there was insufficient evidence presented to show any violation of any court order, hence insufficient evidence to support a finding of any willful violation of a court order, hence insufficient evidence to support a finding of contempt.

Whether the findings of fact by the hearing master are unsupported by and contradicted by the record.

Whether this court and the hearing master are without any jurisdiction to punish Ms. Shell for any actions she may have taken in filing and pursuing a case in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Whether “Unauthorized practice of law” is inadequately defined in Colorado, leaving this area of the “law” unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, making any punishment of Ms. Shell unconstitutional as applied to her. Whether the hearing master failed to define the term.

Whether the contempt citation was based on allegations of actions which are constitutionally protected, and, therefore, failed to confer jurisdiction in this contempt proceeding.

5

issues continued to next page04SA93

issues continued from previous page

Whether the punishment recommended exceeds what was authorized by the contempt citation.

Whether Ms. Shell has been arbitrarily denied the due process protections of the United States and Colorado Constitutions by this court summarily denying her request that a transcript of the proceedings be provided at state expense. She should not be denied due process protections simply because she lacks the funds to pay for a transcript. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

6

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 EN BANCBailiff: Margot Summers Edwards

06SA95 (1 HOUR)

CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT IN EL PASO COUNTY.

Applicant/Appellant:

CHEROKEE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT,

v.

Objectors/Appellees:

HAROLD D. SIMPSON, Colorado State Engineer; COLORADO GROUND WATER COMMISSION; and UPPER BLACK SQUIRREL CREEK GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,

and Division Engineer Pursuant to C.A.R. (1)(e):

Steven J. Witte, Division Engineer, Water Division 2.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Applicant/Appellant:Wayne B. SchroederJody Harper AldermanCarrie S. BernsteinGrimshaw & Harring, P.C.

For the Objectors/Appellees:Upper Black Squirrel Creek Ground Water Management District:Richard T. LiPumaLind, Lawrence & Ottenhoff, LLP

Ground Water Commission and the State Engineer:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralJennifer MeleAssistant Attorney GeneralWater Rights UnitNatural Resource & Environment Section

Appeal from the District Court, Water Division 1, 98CW80Docketed: March 28, 2006At Issue: July 13, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the water court erred by ordering that Cherokee may use Wells 1-8 to supply water outside the Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin only for the purpose of emergency and backup when its Sweetwater Wells are unable to produce a sufficient supply of water “to meet the commitments that existed at the time the parties entered the Stipulation.”

Whether the water court erred by failing to address Cherokee’s claim that the State Engineer is estopped from asserting its present argument because Cherokee relied on the State Engineer’s statements prior to the fall of 2004, that permitted Cherokee to use Wells 1-8 for deliveries outside the Upper Clack Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Basin._____________________________________________________________________________

7

8

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

06SC93 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

BRUCE A. WILLIAMS,

v.

Respondents:

TIMOTHY R. KUNAU, d/b/a KUNAU DRILLING; PINNACOL ASSURANCE; and INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:William A. Alexander, Jr.andPatrick C.H. Spencer, IISpencer & Spencer, P.C.

For Respondents Pinnacol Assurance and Timothy R. Kanau d/b/a Kanau Drilling:Harvey D. Flewelling

For Respondent Industrial Claims Appeals Office:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralVincent E. MorscherAssistant Attorney GeneralCivil Litigation and Employment Law Section

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Self Insurers Association:T. Paul Krueger, IIRitsema & Lyon, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae for Workers Compensation Education Association(WCEA):Michelle L. LaForettPepe J. Mendez and Associates, P.C.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA2192Docketed: March 27, 2006At Issue: July 10, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether, in cases where a claimant has successfully challenged an initial MMI rating through the DIME process, the claimant must request a follow-up DIME in accordance with section 8-42-107, 107.2 in order to challenge the subsequent MMI rating.______________________________________________________________________________

9

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

06SA79 (1 HOUR)

In re:

Plaintiffs:

DUANE REUTTER and PATTY REUTTER,

v.

Defendants:

KEVIN WEBER, M.D., MATTHEW SUMPTER, M.D., and PUEBLO CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For the Petitioners:Jim LeventhalTimothy G. BuxtonBenjamin SachsLeventhal Brown & Puga, P.C.

For the Respondent Kevin Weber, M.D.:John M. PalmeriKimberly F. WellsWhite and Steele, P.C.

For the Respondent Matthew Sumpter, M.D.:Stephen J. HensenTiemeier and Hensen, P.C.

For the Respondent Pueblo Cardiology:Aaron P. BradfordElizabeth C. MoranPryor Johnson Carney Karr Nixon, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado:John L. ConklinMartin Conklin, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae the University of Colorado:Patrick T. O’RourkeSpecial Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of University CounselandKari M. HersheyBudman Mastin & Hershey, LLC

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Defense Lawyers’ Association:John R. MannKennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C.

10

))))))))))))))

cont’d on next page

06SA79 cont’d from previous page

For Amicus Curiae for Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:John Robert HollandAnna Cayton-HollandLaw Office of John Robert Holland, P.C.andJerome M. ReinanLaw Offices of J.M. Reinan, P.C.

Original Proceeding, District Court, Pueblo County, 04CV53Docketed: March 16, 2006At Issue: July 7, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the district court erred by authorizing ex parte communications between defense counsel and Plaintiff Duane Reutter’s treating physicians and other health care providers, in violation of the rule adopted in Samms v. District Court, as well as HIPAA and its implementing regulations, all of which require that reasonable notice and opportunity to be present be provided to the Plaintiffs? _____________________________________________________________________________________________

11

12

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 1:30 p.m.Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 EN BANCBailiff: Kate Daniels

05SC743 ( 1 HOUR)

05SC743

Petitioner:

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a home rule municipality,

v.

Respondents:

VALERIE POWELL, a natural parent of decedent STEVEN POWELL, individually; and JAMES POWELL, a minor, by and through his conservator, Mark Elliott.--------------------------------------------------------

05SC744

Petitioner:

CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a home rule municipality; and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EL PASO,

v.

Respondents:

SPEIGHT FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, a Colorado limited liability limited partnership; and THE GREENVIEW TRUST, Ralph R. Williams, Trustee.--------------------------------------------------------

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

05SC743

For the Petitioner:Patricia K. KellyCity Attorney/Chief Legal OfficerShane WhiteSenior Attorney

For Respondents:Glenn S. Pressman, P.C.Melat, Pressman & Higbie, LLP

--------------------------------------------------

05SC744

For the Petitioner Colorado Springs:Patricia K. KellyCity Attorney/Chief Legal OfficerShane WhiteSenior Attorney

For the Petitioner Board of County Commissioners:Lori L. SeagoAssistant County Attorney

For the Respondents:M.E. MacDougallMacDougall, Woldridge & Worley, P.C.

-------------------------------------------------

cont’d on next page

13

05SC746

Petitioner:

CITY OF LONGMONT,

v.

Respondent:

JUDITH HENRY-HOBBS.

)))))))))))))

05SC746 cont’d from previous page

For the Petitioner:David R. BroughamThomas J. LyonsHall & Evans, LLC

For the Respondent:Karen ColburnRoger Fraley, Jr.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA2030, 03CA2236 & 03CA2187Docketed: October 20, 2005, October 20, 2005 & October 21, 2005At Issue: June 29, 2006, June 23, 2006 & June 30, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that House Bill 03-1288 is prospective in application.______________________________________________________________________________

14

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 2:30 p.m. EN BANC

05SC764 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

v.

Respondent:

GEORGE CECIL ROBERTS.

)))))))))))

For the Petitioner:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralChristine C. BradyAssistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

For the Respondent:Lauretta A. Martin NeffNeff Services, Inc.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1787Docketed: October 31, 2005At Issue: August 14, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred in dismissing this case on speedy trial grounds.___________________________________________________________________________________________

15

Oral Argument: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:00 p.m. EN BANC

06SC75 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

D. H.,

v.

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

In the Interest of: J.T., a child.

)))))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:Davide C. Migliaccio

For the Respondent:Laura C. RhyneDeputy County AttorneyOffice of the El Paso County District Attorney

For the Minor Child:Nancy J. Walker-JohnsonGuardian ad Litem

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 05CA0167Docketed: January 26, 2006At Issue: June 30, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that Petitioner waived her right to appeal the Amended Order Terminating Maternal Rights by failing to raise her claim before the district court.

Whether the Amended Order Terminating Maternal Rights constituted a final judgment within the meaning of C.A.R. 1(a).

Whether Petitioner demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to warrant the excusal of her failure to seek review of the Amended Order Terminating Maternal Rights within five days.

Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that Petitioner waived her ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise her claim before the district court.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

16

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m.Oral Argument, Thursday, September 14, 2006 EN BANCBailiff: Cori Parobek

05SC367 ( 1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

HUGH ALEXANDER, a Colorado resident; KEVIN M. KUZNICKI, a Colorado resident; and ALEXANDER LAW FIRM, P.C. f/k/a ALEXANDER & CRABTREE, P.C., a Colorado professional corporation,

v.

Respondent:

GLEN ANSTINE, a U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee for Builders Home Warranty, Inc.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For Petitioners:Michael T. McConnellTroy R. RackhamMcConnell Siderius Fleischner Houghtaling & Craigmile, LLC

For Respondent: Dennis J. BartlettMarc R. BrosseauKerr Brosseau Bartlett O’Brien, LLC

For Amicus Curiae the Colorado Bar Association:David H. YunKaren M. KwonJaudon & Avery LLP

Amicus Curiae for “Law Firms”:Lee MickusMarsha PicconeSnell & Wilmer, L.L.P.andDavid W. StarkFaegre & Benson LLPandBruce F. BlackHolme Roberts & Owen, LLPandPhilip CardiJackson Kelly PLLCandFrederick J. BaumannRothgerber, Johnson & Lyons, LLPand John D. PhillipsShugart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.

17

))))))))))))))))

cont’d on next page

05SC367 cont’d from previous page

Amicus Curiae for Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:James A. CederbergBuchanan, Jurdem & Cederberg, P.C.

Amicus Curiae for Jeffrey Hill, Chapter 7 Trustee for MS55, a/k/a MSHOW. com, Inc.:D. Bruce ColesFish & Coles

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 03CA1037Docketed: June 30, 2005At Issue: July 17, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether Colorado law recognizes a fiduciary duty owed by an insolvent debtor’s officer to the debtor’s creditors and, if so, whether 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) and Colorado law permit a bankruptcy trustee, acting as a hypothetical judgment lien creditor, to sue the debtor’s lawyer for aiding and abetting the debtor’s officer breach this fiduciary duty.

Whether a lawyer can be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty of his client’s officer to a non-client.______________________________________________________________________________

18

Oral Argument, Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:00 a.m. EN BANC

05SC389 (1/2 HOUR)

Petitioners:

DOUG T. HOANG, HIEU T. VAN, GREGORY STORBAKKEN, JOAN STORBAKKEN, ALLAN WALTS; MARSHA WALTS; and MONTERRA HOMES (POWDERHORN) LLC,a Colorado limited liability corporation,

v.

Respondents:

ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New York corporation; and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

For Petitioners Doug T. Hoang, Hieu T. Van, Gregory Storbakken, Joan Storbakken, Allan Walts and Marsha Walts:Ronald M. SandgrundScott F. SullanJoseph F. SmithLeslie A. TuftVanatta, Sullan, Sandgrund & Sullan, P.C.

For Petitioner Monterra Homes (Powderhorn), LLC:Dennis B. PolkHolley, Albertson & Polk, P.C.andPatrick J. CaseyLottner Rubin Fishman, Brown & Saul P.C.(did not file on the merits)

For Respondents:Sean ConnellyEric FisherReilly Pozner & Connelly, LLPandBruce R. MecklerChristopher E. KentraMeckler Bulger & Tilson

For Amicus Curiae Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings:Jesse Howard WittBenson & Associates, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae Community Associations Institute:T. Cass McKenzieMcKenzie, Rhody & Hearn, LLC

19

)))))))))))))))

cont’d on next page 05SC389

cont’d from previous page

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:Victoria SwansonSears & Swanson, P.C.

For Amicus Curiae Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association:Chris MattisonHall & Evans, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 02CA2544 & 03CA0379Docketed: June 2, 2005At Issue: August 3, 2006

ISSUE(S):

Whether liability insurance coverage for property damage is voided if the damage occurs while a claimant’s predecessor in interest owns the damaged property, despite the insured being found legally liable to pay all the claimant’s damages, including damages attributable to such property damage, a view every other state and federal court has rejected?_____________________________________________________________________________________________

20

Oral Argument, Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:30 a.m. EN BANC

05SC508 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

v.

Respondent:

JOSE ALBERT HEREDIA.

)))))))))))))

For the Petitioner:John W. SuthersAttorney GeneralChristine C. BradyAssistant Attorney GeneralAppellate DivisionCriminal Justice Section

For the Respondent:David S. KaplanColorado State Public DefenderKathleen A. LordDeputy State Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 04CA0115Docketed: July 22, 2005At Issue: July 3, 2006

ISSUE (S):

Whether the district court has jurisdiction to grant the People’s Crim. P. 35(a) motion to correct illegal sentence after the Colorado Supreme Court reverses the Colorado Court of Appeals’ erroneous interpretation or application of a statute._____________________________________________________________________________________________

21