existing right privilege in Colorado

2026Waiver may be explicit, such as “when a party expressly abandons an existing right or privilege,” or implied, such as “when a party engages in conduct that manifests an intent to relinquish a right or privilege or acts inconsistently with its assertion.” Forgette v. People, 2023 CO 4, ¶ 28 .

2025See Forgette v. People, 2023 CO 4, ¶ 28 (“A waiver may be explicit, as, for example, when a party expressly abandons an existing right or privilege or it may be implied, as when a party engages in conduct that manifests an intent to relinquish a right or privilege or acts inconsistently with its assertion.”).

2026Waiver may be explicit, such as “when a party orally or in writing abandons an existing right or privilege.” Id.

2025Waiver of the privilege “may be explicit, as when a party orally or in writing abandons an existing right or privilege; or it may be implied, as, for example, when a party engages in conduct which manifests an intent to relinquish the right or privilege, or acts inconsistently with its assertion.” Donahue, 690 P.2d at 247 . ¶ 56 Sigalla argues that this principle applies here because the PUC “allowed Meidhof and Kyed to introduce 134 pages of witness statements” from the investigative report.

2025A waiver “extinguishes error, and therefore appellate review.” Rediger, ¶ 40; see also In Interest of L.B., 2017 COA 5 , ¶ 51 (“A waiver occurs when a party removes an issue from the court’s consideration.”). ¶8 “[D]ependency and neglect proceedings are subject to the limitation that except where jurisdiction is implicated, generally 3 appellate courts review only issues presented to and ruled on by the lower court.” People in Interest of M.B., 2020 COA 13, ¶ 14 ; but see People in Interest of T.W., 2022 COA 88M , ¶ 51 (noting that appellate courts may exercise their discretion to address an u

2025An appellate court “indulge[s] every reasonable presumption against waiver.” Rediger, ¶ 39 (quoting People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504, 514 (Colo. 1984)).

2025See Babcock v. People, 2025 CO 26 , ¶ 29 (“Waiver may be explicit, such as ‘when a party expressly abandons an existing right or privilege,’ or implied, such as ‘when a party engages in conduct that manifests an intent to relinquish a right or privilege or acts inconsistently with its assertion.’” (quoting Forgette v. People, 2023 CO 4, ¶ 28 )); cf. Woods v. Monticello Dev.

2025See Benavidez v. People, 986 P.2d 943, 948 (Colo. 1999) (In determining the validity of any particular view of a plea agreement, “we look not only to the written instruments associated with the agreement, but also to extrinsic evidence in the form of oral statements.”).

2025Co., 656 P.2d 1324, 1327 (Colo. App. 1982) (an anti-waiver provision in a contract may be waived by conduct). ¶ 30 Therefore, I concur in the judgment. 14

2025But “the mere failure to raise an issue neither amounts to the type of unequivocal act indicative of a waiver nor constitutes the type of conduct that clearly manifests any intent to relinquish the claim.” Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72, ¶ 21 (citation modified). ¶ 23 Whether a claim has been waived depends on the particular circumstances of a case.

2013Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d 393, 400 (Colo.2010) ("The employee's right to receive benefits [under workers' compensation] and the employer's and insurer's liability to pay those benefits gain independent legal existence wpon entry of an award of benefits." (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted)). 1 23 The hospital cites Denver, South Park & Pacific Railway Co. v. Woodward, 4 Colo. 162 (1878) (Woodward II), for the proposition that "[rlegardless of whether a right is vested, a statute is retrospective, and therefore impermissible, 'if it affect[s] an existing cause of action or an existing

2013In the first opinion, Denver, South Park & Pacific Railway Co. v. Woodward, 4 Colo. 1, 12 (1877) (Woodward I), the supreme court affirmed a judgment based on a statutory cause of action.

1984See People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo.1982); Underhill v. Detert, 152 Colo. 223 , 381 P.2d 265 (1963); Johnson v. Neel, 123 Colo. 377 , 229 P.2d 939 (1951); People ex rel.