RQ Law Blog

Jeff and I kept abreast of legislative developments throughout the year as members of the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association Legislative Committee. However, the legislative session can get rather hectic, particularly in the final days and our posts about legislative developments may have room for improvement. Because many bills passed during the 70th General Assembly have effective dates in the late summer and early fall, now is an excellent time to...

Contact us if you would like a copy of any opinion or would like to discuss the Court's holdings.   Wainscott v. Centura Health Corporation – Court of Appeals holds that strict compliance with hospital lien is not required (CA 08/14/14). The Court of Appeals held that minor filing and notice deficiencies should not invalidate an otherwise valid hospital lien and that substantial compliance may be sufficient to satisfy the...

Monday the Colorado Supreme Court rejected a proposed initiative intended for the November 2014 ballot that would amend the state constitution to allow voter recall of judges. In a split decision, they held that it violated the single subject rule. The two other proposed ballot initiatives aimed at courts and judges are still alive. Sponsored by ‘Clean Up the Courts,’ one initiative (the Two-Thirds Majority Initiative) would require judges standing...

Lewis v. Taylor – Court of appeals holds time limitati o n for fraudulent conveyance action is jurisdictional and thus cannot be tolled  (CA 03/13/14). Section 38-8-110(1) provides that a fraudulent conveyance action is “extinguished” unless brought within the applicable time period. The Court first noted that there is a distinction between a jurisdictional time limitation and a non-jurisdictional time limit ation.  A jurisdictional time limitation is one that, if...

      Stresscon Corp. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America . – Court of Appeals expands notice-prejudice rule (CA 09/12/13). In this construction case, the general contractor and the concrete company settled their dispute without litigation and without the insurance company of the settlement or obtain its consent. The insurance company argued that the notice–prejudice rule does not apply to breaches of “no voluntary payment” clauses, and insurers...