first element claim in Colorado

2026Compare id. at ¶¶ 13, 26 (omitting the merits requirement from the first element of claim preclusion without discussion), with O’Neill v. Simpson, 958 P.2d 1121 , 1123 n.4 (Colo. 1998) (“[C]laim preclusion[] bars subsequent claims by identical parties based on the same claim for relief after there has been a final judgment on the merits.”), and Calvert v. Mayberry, 2016 COA 60, ¶ 15 (same), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 2019 CO 23 . ¶ 20 Even if our case law does not require a final judgment on the merits such that the bankruptcy court’s stay relief order satisfies the firs

2026Compare id. at ¶¶ 13, 26 (omitting the merits requirement from the first element of claim preclusion without discussion), with O’Neill v. Simpson, 958 P.2d 1121 , 1123 n.4 (Colo. 1998) (“[C]laim preclusion[] bars subsequent claims by identical parties based on the same claim for relief after there has been a final judgment on the merits.”), and Calvert v. Mayberry, 2016 COA 60, ¶ 15 (same), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 2019 CO 23 . ¶ 20 Even if our case law does not require a final judgment on the merits such that the bankruptcy court’s stay relief order satisfies the firs

2026Compare id. at ¶¶ 13, 26 (omitting the merits requirement from the first element of claim preclusion without discussion), with O’Neill v. Simpson, 958 P.2d 1121 , 1123 n.4 (Colo. 1998) (“[C]laim preclusion[] bars subsequent claims by identical parties based on the same claim for relief after there has been a final judgment on the merits.”), and Calvert v. Mayberry, 2016 COA 60, ¶ 15 (same), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 2019 CO 23 . ¶ 20 Even if our case law does not require a final judgment on the merits such that the bankruptcy court’s stay relief order satisfies the firs

2025Id. at 267-68 ; see also Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-78 . ¶ 37 The court must consider the totality of the circumstances and is not restricted to these specific factors.

2025Est. of Ford v. Eicher, 250 P.3d 262, 267 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 36 In determining the reliability of an expert’s methodology under the first element of this test, a trial court may consider the following nonexclusive list of factors: 15 (1) Whether the technique can and has been tested; (2) Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) The scientific technique’s known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; (4) Whether the technique has been generally accepted; (5) The relationship of t

2025Id. at 267-68 ; see also Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-78 . ¶ 37 The court must consider the totality of the circumstances and is not restricted to these specific factors.

2025In its answer brief, the city council concedes that “[u]pon further review of the case law cited in Mr. Jensen’s Opening Brief, specifically with respect to the first element of claim preclusion, the Loveland City Council respectfully agrees that Mr. Jensen’s claim under Colorado’s Open Meetings Law is not claim precluded.” 5 ¶ 12 While “[w]e are not bound by the parties’ concessions,” People v. Knott, 83 P.3d 1147, 1148 (Colo. App. 2003), we agree that Jensen’s December complaint was not precluded by the prior judgment.

2024Pearson v. Kancilia, 70 P.3d 594, 597 (Colo. App. 2003).

2022See Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz , 823 P.2d 100, 107 (Colo. 1992) (i dentifying the elements that an at- will employee must plead to establi sh a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the pu blic policy exception).

2022See Rinker v. Colina -Lee , 2019 COA 45, ¶ 22 , 452 P. 3d 161, 167 (“We do not review issues that have been insufficiently preserved.”). ¶ 20 According to Denver Health, Castill o failed to assert in her response to its motion to dismiss, as she does now, that Denver Health did not terminate her emplo yment for exercising a “job- related right.” Instead, Denver H ealth contends that Castillo argu ed in her response that she did not satisfy the first element of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for the sole 9 reason that Denver Health did not direct her to perform an

2022See In re Estate of Owens , 2017 COA 53, ¶ 21, 413 P.3d 255, 261-62 (“ Where an issue was brought to the district court’s attention and t he court ruled on it, it is preserved for appellate review; no t alismanic language is required t o preserve an issue.”). 11 B.

2022See In re Estate of Owens , 2017 COA 53, ¶ 21, 413 P.3d 255, 261-62 (“ Where an issue was brought to the district court’s attention and t he court ruled on it, it is preserved for appellate review; no t alismanic language is required t o preserve an issue.”). 11 B.