My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reply to CWCB's Opposition to Disqualification of Justice Hobbs
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Reply to CWCB's Opposition to Disqualification of Justice Hobbs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:41 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:44:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
9/2/2004
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Reply to CWCB's Opposition to Disqualification of Justice Hobbs
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
09-16-2004 11:16AM FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />3038663558 T-183 P.006/008 F-311 <br />4,) As is evident from the CWCB's opeuing 6ricf here, the CWCB does nat tYiink the "current <br />status" of Colorado watex law accommodates recreatiOnal in-chaiutiel watar rights basad on <br />trad.itional nations of bcneficial usii. U'pper Gunnison's morian explains that Justice Hobbe' <br />exttajudicial statemanta acaze eonsisterit wiTh this res'trictive viewpoint, thereby creating the appearaxlce <br />that he has a poeition aligned with the CWCB on tWs issuz, which has beeA idenTified aad framed <br />by tho CWCB'a brief in tWs caae. <br />Upper Gunnison's motion is not based on mere "conclueory allegatiQUS" unsupportzd by <br />facta. The faets arr. clearly sot fortn in the motion anti affidavit and, under Colora.do law, they m.ust <br />be acceptsd aa trua intha aontaxt ofthis m.oTion. See Zadine v. TeldurideLodgeAss'n, 732 P.2d 635, <br />639 (Colo.1987). when all ofThe facts are conaidered togcthcr, they creata the clear appearance rhaT <br />Justice Hobbs has a positioual biae on isaucs framed by thn CWC$'s brief. This appearance ie the <br />basia for Upper Crunnison's Pear rhat Tustic?-- Hobbs may not be able to give Upper Gunriison's <br />argumcnc9 the impartial consideratfozt they are due. <br />M. S4IglulwA <br />Hctc, the canstellation af cixcumstances must be carefully couaidcrcd. Thesa circumstances <br />go beyond Justice Hobbs' participaTion in Forr Coldins before he becama a Supreme Cout't justicz. <br />Rathex, the argUments hi-, made in that case must be considarad in light of (1) the way the CWCB hax <br />fremsd the iasues in this appeal; (2) lustiae kiolabs° recusal in the Golden cases, where the CWCS <br />raadti the vLny same arguments for limiting recraational in-channel water nghts as Juatice Hobbs <br />macle in Fora Codlins; and (3) 7ustice Hobbs' statements mada after hn became a Supreme Caurt <br />justice, and a{tar the SB 216 auiendments wcrc cnacted, indicating ThaT he halds the sam,? rekitrictive <br />5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.