Laserfiche WebLink
08-27-2004 03:39PM FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663558 T-045 P.004/008 F-067 <br />t1nlil:e thc situauion in tliz Gcildei,, Vaii and F3rccl:enrie cases, Northurn is neitlter a <br />pany nnr ;nnjcus in tliis case and, ilierc:Corc, lllu U11Iy oI)VIOUS fc1S0[I fol",141SLIC2 I IOLib.-s's <br />non-parLicipation M thc Crolden, Vail and„-Breclct?nridge cases case is nul present hzrc:. <br />Moreovcr, S Jpper Guntiison's impjicatiom rzlies oil a misSIa2rmcnt ot the ccntral <br />issue to be ciecided in ihis case. The cznti'al issue in tlie Gnlden , Wil, and Brecken?•idge: <br />caszs was wheTher -ecreational in-channcl diversions were valid watcr ribhts luider the <br />COluraLio sLatutes ill effect at thLu tiiile_ ,lustice Tlobbes should nut disqualify himsclf in <br />this case because il does not involvc points uf law with respcci to which Iiz laas exprcssucl <br />any opinion or farmulatcd any pulicy pr-ior, to asccncling to tho bench bec-ause this ease <br />invulves the int4rpre[aliOti of'Senate Bill 216 ("SI3 216"), which was anly passed in 2001. <br />Th.3t 71.1sticC Hohhs once parti?:ipated iiz a case invoiviiig different parties ariil the <br />lllt2l'pC2tai1011 oCCliI Cr-Te111 S4tlLlll41'y lat1g110.gz dOc'S 110j pruvldr a ValTd FaCtlAal b3S1S LO <br />Liisqualify hiin tran, this case.' Indeed, to accept Upper Gunnisnn's argument would <br />nicaii 1ha1jut4bes should be disqualiiied iconi cvcr consiaCrinb cases cnncerning broad <br />lebnl yttcslions thaG catne 4p wheil tli?:y wcrc in Tlio praclice of law.j 'I Ilis abslltd resull <br />cannot he Lhe intent ot thCjUdicial C.'anuns. <br />ncat ?it lelst givzn oiliizions as tc, cunNtiiu[iOnal i»utfs in iheir przvious legfll earzers,°' Ii. <br />"Proo!'thai u 1ustic,:'s nlind at The time he,joinzd the Court was a coinplete tabula r4s<< in <br />tlie uti•ea of ec,nstinuional adjud;eatian w41i1c1 be evidence oClack uFqualificaLion, 110t lael: <br />of bias." lcl. <br />' I.ikewise, T1?e .tiet ihat .iuiticC Hubbs' furmcr law tirm and rlienl partieipatcd in Tiio <br />Seilate Bil1 216 leg,slaiive hearings has no bearing on his aUility tu r?':n-j<<in unhiased. <br />.iusticc Hohbs was not a mzmber of thz firnl or cQUnsel io Nonhern ai ihe timc al'thosc <br />henrir?gs_ <br />3Lvzn wheii a judg;: has niled on similar issues in a different case, disqualification is not <br />rc:autrc4 TIze C1c:8lcST case of c:xpressing prior opinions on an isSue is that of a,fustice <br />who cnme, to this I;`aurT I'rorn a lowcr cnur[, and has, while sitting a!; s juagO ot'the lowor <br />courl, had uccasion tn paas un an is5uc which lnter cumes beForc this Court. "No morc