discretionary exception in Colorado

2026Avalanche Indus., 198 P.3d at 592 . ¶ 11 “In cases applying the discretionary exception, we review the ALJ’s decision for an abuse of discretion, only reversing where it ‘exceed[ed] the bounds of reason’ and was unsupported by applicable law.” Id. at 596 (quoting Coates, Reid & Waldron v. Vigil, 856 P.2d 850, 856 (Colo. 1993)).

2009The fourth, Dugan v. Industrial Commission, 690 P.2d 267 (Colo.App.1984), merely stands for the principle that a claimant cannot receive the higher salary from an earlier job when injured at a later, lower-paying job, see Coates, 856 P.2d at 857 n. 8 (finding Dugan "readily distinguishable"), and that a claimant cannot receive an increased award under the discretionary exception when the claimant cannot prove that he or she was able to earn the higher wage, see St.

2019In re Estate of Walter, 97 P.3d 188, 191 (Colo. App. 2003).

2007In re Estate of Walter, 97 P.3d 188, 191 (Colo.App.2003).

2016Court, 666 P.2d 550, 553 (Colo. 1983) (the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice directing that prior relevant rulings in the same case must generally be followed). ¶36 Furthermore, Lensky had the right to exclude defendants and other third parties from the subject property because, as a putative adverse possessor, he has an interest in the property “enforceable against everyone except the owner or one claiming through the owner.” Spring Valley Estates, 181 Colo, at 438, 510 P.2d at 338 .

2007Id.

2025A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 41 As applied to earlier rulings of a trial judge, the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice that provides that “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999)).

2025People v. Abdul, 935 P.2d 4, 10 (Colo. 1997); see also People v. Herrera, 2014 COA 20, ¶ 10 . ¶ 13 We review the district court’s denial of a discretionary hearing for an abuse of discretion.

2025A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 41 As applied to earlier rulings of a trial judge, the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice that provides that “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999)).

2025People v. Abdul, 935 P.2d 4, 10 (Colo. 1997); see also People v. Herrera, 2014 COA 20, ¶ 10 . ¶ 13 We review the district court’s denial of a discretionary hearing for an abuse of discretion.

2025See People v. Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617, 624 (Colo. App. 1997) (“Law of the case, 28 when applied to a court’s power to reconsider its own prior rulings, is a discretionary rule of practice because it merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.” (citing People ex rel.

2024See People in Interest of Z.P., 167 P.3d 211, 214 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶7 The discretionary standard set forth in C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-1(2)(b), together with its required advisements and the Children’s Code, provide sufficient safeguards to protect a parent’s interests in a dependency and neglect proceeding.

2024Z.P., 167 P.3d at 214 .

2010The United States Supreme Court has held that the similar attorney fee provisions in federal civil rights statutes are intended to further the goal of ensuring that private parties enforce those laws, since "few aggrieved parties would be in a position" to seek relief "[ilf successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 [ 88 S.Ct. 964 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 ] (1968). (3) In adopting this discretionary standard, the General Assembly intends to make the wage claim act a useful tool for employees to recover wag

2010The United States Supreme Court has held that the similar attorney fee provisions in federal civil rights statutes are intended to further the goal of ensuring that private parties enforce those laws, since "few aggrieved parties would be in a position" to seek relief "[ilf successful plaintiffs were routinely forced to bear their own attorneys' fees." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 [ 88 S.Ct. 964 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 ] (1968). (3) In adopting this discretionary standard, the General Assembly intends to make the wage claim act a useful tool for employees to recover wag

2009Comm'n, 732 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo.App. 1986) (affirming the ALJ's decision to set aside the contract of hire in force at the time of the injury and instead apply the discretionary exception to lower the award where the default statute overstated the claimant's AWW); W.

2009Comm'n, 732 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo.App. 1986) (affirming the ALJ's decision to set aside the contract of hire in force at the time of the injury and instead apply the discretionary exception to lower the award where the default statute overstated the claimant's AWW); W.

2009See Sterling Colo. Beef v. Baca, 699 P.2d 1347 (Colo.App.1985) (commenting on the default rule); Bellendir v. Keger, 648 P.2d 645 (Colo.1982) (rejecting the argument that the workers' compensation statute violated due process and equal protection because it did not adjust awards for inflation); Lytile v. State Comp.

2009See Sterling Colo. Beef v. Baca, 699 P.2d 1347 (Colo.App.1985) (commenting on the default rule); Bellendir v. Kezer, 648 P.2d 645 (Colo.1982) (rejecting the argument that the workers' compensation statute violated due process and equal protection because it did not adjust awards for inflation); Lyttle v. State Comp.

2009We have consistently regarded the General Assembly's decision not to alter a statute when it makes amendments to related statutes "as evidence of its acquiescence to the judicial construction of the terms in those opinions." See City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461, 467 (Colo.2007) (citations omitted).

2009In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo.2006).

2009In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo.2006).

2009Campbell v. IBM Corp., 867 P.2d 77, 82 (Colo.App.1993).

2009Sizzlin Steak House v. Axton, 701 P.2d 96, 98 (Colo.App.1984) ('Under such circumstances, it is not for the commission or this court to substitute its judgment for that of the [ALJ]."). .

2009Sizzlin Steak House v. Axton, 701 P.2d 96, 98 (Colo.App.1984) ("Under such circumstances, it is not for the commission or this court to substitute its judgment for that of the [ALJ]."). [2] Only disabilities manifesting within five years are considered to be caused by the precipitating accident.

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008App.1989) (theft); State v. Gallant, 307 Or. 152 , 764 P.2d 920, 923 (1988) (petty theft); Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120, 123 (1987) (theft); State v. Shaw, 328 S.C. 454 , 492 S.E.2d 402, 404 (Ct.App.1997) (shoplifting); State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn.1981) (shoplifting); State v. Ray, 116 Wash.2d 531 , 806 P.2d 1220, 1228 (1991) (theft). [8] See federal cases cited supra note 5. [9] See cases cited supra notes 6 and 7. [10] The trial court in this case did not engage in a discretionary analysis under CRE 403. [11] There is no question that jeopardy has attach

2008See People v. Berreth, 13 P.3d 1214, 1216 (Colo. 2000). [12] The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.