My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 01SA252 Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Justice Hobbs and Motion for Disqualification March 2002
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 01SA252 Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Justice Hobbs and Motion for Disqualification March 2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2012 10:28:21 AM
Creation date
7/12/2012 4:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 01SA252 Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Justice Hobbs and Motion for Disqualification March 2002
State
CO
Date
3/27/2002
Author
Porzak, Glenn E.; Bushong, Steven J.; Holleman, P. Fritz
Title
Case No. 01SA252 Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Justice Hobbs and Motion for Disqualification March 2002
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.
/
12
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
arguments about the continuing viability of Ft. Collins, and urge the Court to place serious limits <br />on the holding in that case.' <br />Clearly, the meaning and continuing viability of Ft. Collins are issues in this appeal. Even <br />if disqualification were not suggested under C.R.C.P. 97 and C.R.S. § 13 -1 -122 by the mere fact <br />that Justice Hobbs' former clients are involved in this appeal, it would be suggested by Judicial <br />Cannon 3(C), which requires disqualification where a judge has been a lawyer in "a matter in <br />controversy." The fact is that Justice Hobbs was actively involved in Ft. Collins as an attorney, <br />and the State and amici have put the facts, meaning, and continuing viability of that case squarely <br />at issue. Golden questions whether Justice Hobbs should have a vote to repudiate or limit that <br />case as his former clients have requested and as he earlier argued. Golden's concern on this point <br />is amplified when the brief that Justice Hobbs' submitted in Ft. Collins is compared to what his <br />former clients and the State are asserting in this appeal. <br />2. The State and amici are mimicking back to Justice Hobbs the very <br />arguments he made against the Ft. Collins boat chute. Golden should <br />not have to worry that these arguments will be weighed on anything <br />other than their merits. <br />Not only have the State and amici put the meaning and continuing effect of the Ft. Collins <br />case at issue, but they have also adopted, almost exactly, the arguments made by Justice Hobbs <br />when he was working as an attorney for Northern in that case. In the brief filed on behalf of <br />Northern in Ft. Collins, Justice Hobbs argued against the recreation diversion at issue with the <br />arguments that are set forth in the single- spaced, indented paragraphs below. The nearly <br />identical arguments made in this case by the State and Justice Hobbs' former clients, Northern <br />and the CWC, are cited or quoted below each indented paragraph. <br />'See Northern Brief at 4 -8; CWC Brief at 11 -15. <br />Ph0438 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.