My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46384
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46384
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:19:28 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:36:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Boards Answer to Boyton et al v. MLRB
From
AGO
To
MLRB & DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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).
View images
View plain text
to present cases. Plaintiff Boynton was allowed to testify without restriction. Vol. 3, p. 1044- <br />1055. She never attempted to cross-examine a witness. She never asked for more time. The <br />Board did not exclude any evidence she offered. The Board is unable to find any evidence in the <br />record that indicates Plaintiff Boynton was denied sufficient time to present her case or the <br />opportunity to cross-examine. Plaintiff Stepe was allowed to testify without restriction. Vol. 3, <br />pp. 1099-1102. Plaintiff Akin did not testify. The Board did not interrupt their attorney on the <br />basis of a time restriction, nor was he refused cross-examination. <br />Plaintiffs examined Four States' witness Aryol Bromley with no adverse ruling from the <br />Boazd on time, cross-examination or any other issue. Vol. 3, pp. 1125-1128. This examination <br />stopped when Counsel decided to stop, not by the Boazd's enforcement of any time restriction. <br />Id. The Boazd is unable to fmd any example in the record in which the Boazd refuses Plaintiffs <br />Akin and Stepeaoss-examination, or stops any argument or examination because of a time limit. <br />Plaintiffs did not make a timely objection to their time limit, or an offer of proof, at the <br />time the Boazd was considering the prehearing order. Vol. 3, pp. 1020-1021. Therefore, this <br />issue should not be considered. Hancock v. State Department of Revenue, 758 P.2d 1372, 1377 <br />(Colo.1988) (Failure to make an objection at trial on the grounds asserted on appeal is deemed a <br />waiver of those issues, which precludes the court from considering the issue on appeal); Herrera <br />v. Industrial Claim Appeals Offzce of Colo., 18 P.3d 819, 822 (Colo. App. 2000) (No basis to <br />establish reversible error after failure to make offer of proof). <br />Plaintiffs argue that the Board allowed the Division to exceed its time Iimit, as <br />established in the prehearing order. The Board allowed the Division fifteen minutes more than <br />established in the prehearing order during its rebuttal. Yol. 3, p. 1280. § 24-4-105(4), C.R.S. <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.