Laserfiche WebLink
(Colo. App. 2008); see also Dev. Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524, <br /> 534 (Colo. 2008) (requiring the challenging party to establish that <br /> the law is unconstitutional "under the circumstances in which the <br /> [claimant] has acted or proposes to act") (citation omitted). <br /> +t! The due process requirement of neutrality in adjudicative <br /> proceedings entitles a person to an impartial decision-maker. City <br /> of Manassa v. Ruff, 235 P.3d 1051, 1056 (Colo. 2010) (citing <br /> Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)). An impartial <br /> adjudication requires "the absence of a personal, financial, or <br /> official stake in the decision evidencing a conflict of interest on the <br /> part of a decision-maker." Scott v. City of Englewood, 672 P.2d 225, <br /> 228 (Colo. App. 1983). This concept encompasses both the absence <br /> of actual bias and the risk of actual bias. See Caperton, 556 U.S. at <br /> 883-84. <br /> 41 As to the latter, the United States Supreme Court elaborated <br /> on the risk of actual bias in Caperton, 556 U.S. at 883-84. There, a <br /> candidate for the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, Brent <br /> Benjamin, received $3 million in campaign contributions from Don <br /> Blankenship, a coal company chief executive officer whose company <br /> had recently sustained a $50 million dollar adverse jury verdict. Id. <br /> 20 <br />