George E. Lohr

This case involves tort claims brought by a mother and her son against a church and its former pastor, alleging inappropriate touching by the pastor during counseling sessions with the child. The trial court allowed the claims to go to the jury, which returned verdicts for the plaintiffs, but the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and reinstated the trial court's judgment, reasoning that the First Amendment did not bar the claims because the pastor's methods were not based on religious beliefs, and the church had notice of prior complaints about the pastor's conduct.

religious libertytorts & liability

The case involved Bryan Sidney Thornton, who was charged with felony escape after fleeing from police officers attempting to arrest him on an outstanding felony warrant. The trial court dismissed the charge for lack of probable cause that Thornton was "in custody or confinement" as required by the escape statute, section 18-8-208(3), and the court of appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that custody under the statute is established when a suspect submits to an officer's authority and direction to submit to arrest, without requiring actual physical restraint or force. The court reasoned that the officers had directed Thornton to a car for a pat-down, which he initially followed, before he broke and ran. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the escape charge.

criminal law

The case concerned whether Larimer County could adopt subdivision regulations requiring compliance with its master land use plan and deny an application for the Windemere Acres Subdivision based on inconsistencies with plan provisions on rural character, service consolidation, and intensity of development. The Board of County Commissioners denied the revised application after hearings, the district court upheld the denial, but the court of appeals reversed it as arbitrary. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded, ruling that counties may condition subdivision approval on master plan compliance when the plan provisions are incorporated into regulations, though remand was needed for adequate findings or to refine standards if they prove insufficiently specific.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Christopher Dale Dill's conviction for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust based on an alleged 1988 incident. The defendant sought pretrial discovery of notes and reports from meetings between the child victim and a psychologist, including both an initial investigative session and later therapeutic sessions, to look for potentially exculpatory or inconsistent statements. The trial court permitted disclosure of materials from the investigative interview but denied access to the therapeutic materials on privilege grounds, and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the psychologist-client privilege protected the therapeutic notes, no waiver had occurred through use of unprivileged materials, and the defendant had not made a sufficient particularized showing to require in camera review or disclosure under due process standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the Colorado Department of Transportation sued a truck driver and owner to recover for damage to a highway tunnel wall caused by an oversized load, after the two-year statute of limitations for tort actions had expired following failed settlement negotiations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the state, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the state was exempt from statutes of limitation under the common-law doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the doctrine is an aspect of sovereign immunity, which Colorado has abrogated, and that no adequate policy basis exists to retain nullum tempus for the state while rejecting sovereign immunity. The court remanded for further proceedings on whether the statute of limitations bars the claims.

proceduretorts & liability

In Gordon v. Benson, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence after their vehicles collided at a parking lot exit, presenting conflicting accounts of whether the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff's stopped car or the plaintiff backed into the defendant's stopped vehicle. The trial court declined to instruct the jury on comparative negligence, concluding the evidence showed fault on only one side, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $352,000 in damages. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to find both parties negligent and that a defendant need not admit negligence to receive a comparative negligence instruction.

torts & liability