My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2010 1:20:40 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 3:31:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/14/2001
Author
Ken Salazar, John J. Cyran
Title
Motion for Continuance of Trial and Stay of Discovery Deadlines
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.
/
16
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
Because the Decree of the water court is final and has resolved all issues pending <br />before the water court, there was no need for a C.R.C.P. 54 (b) certification. <br />D. Date the Judgment and Decree was entered and the date of mailing to counsel <br />The Decree was entered by the water judge and mailed to counsel on June 13, 2001. <br />E . Whether there were any extensions granted to file any motions for post -trial <br />relief. <br />No post trial motions were filed, and no extensions to do so were requested. <br />F . The date any motion for post -trial relief was filed. <br />Not applicable. <br />G . The date any motion for post -trial relief was denied or deemed denied <br />Not applicable. <br />H . Whether there were any extensions granted to file any notice of appeal <br />No extension to file the Notice of Appeal was requested. <br />H. ADVISORY LISTING OF ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL. <br />A. Whether the water court erred in not setting a duty of water for recreational <br />boating uses. <br />B. Whether the water court erred in allowing an instream use of water contrary to <br />the provisions of § 37 -92- 102(3), 10 C.R.S. (2000); <br />C. Whether the water court erred in awarding an impermissible riparian water <br />right; <br />D. Whether the Supreme Court should repudiate a portion of its opinion in the Ft. <br />Collins decision; <br />E. Whether the water court improperly applied the opinion in Ft. Collins to this <br />case; <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.