My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:50:26 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
8/23/2004
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
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.
/
14
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
reason Upper Gunnison questions whether Justice Hobbs should have a vote to decide this appeal <br />. is that there is at least an appearance of a positional bias based on the fact that the CWCB is <br />presenting arguments here that are virtually identical to the ones made by Justice Hobbs in Fort <br />Collins. <br />B. The Meaning of Fort Collins Was At Issue in the Golden Cases, in which Justice <br />Hobbs Recnsed Himself. <br />After Fort Collins, three applications were filed in two different water courts for xecreational <br />in-channel water rights for boating courses. The claims were made under the authority of FoYt <br />Collins, and were awarded consistently therewith. Covell aff. 18. The GWCB appealed all three <br />cases (Covell aff. ¶ 9), and the decrees were upheld by this Court by operation of law. State <br />Engineer v. Golden, 69 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2003) ("Golden").; StateEngineeY v. Eagle River Water and <br />Sanitation District, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003) ("Eagle River"); and State EngineeY v. Town of <br />Breckenridge, 69 P.3d 1028 (Colo. 2003) ("BYeckenYidge"). (Golden,EagleRiver; andBreckenridge <br />are collectively referred to herein as the "Golden cases"). Justice Hobbs recused hixnself in all three <br />cases. Covell aff: ¶ 12, Attachments N and O. <br />In the Golden cases, the CWCB argued that SB 212 prevented recreational in-channel water <br />rights for the boating courses and that Fort ColZins had no continuing viability in the wake of SB <br />212. Covell aff. ¶ 9, Attachment H, Opening Bri.ef at 3, 11-14, 21 and Reply at 6-8, 18-21, and 28; <br />AttacYunent I, Opening Brief at 4=6, 7-15 (particularly 14-15) and Reply at 4-5, 6, and 9-10; and <br />Attachment J, Opening Brief at 4-5, 6-14 (particularly 13-14) and Reply at 3-5, 9-10. This argument <br />was an echo of Justice Hobbs' arguznent in Fort Collins. Covell aff. 17, Attachment G at 3, 4. This <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.