Results matching “colorado construction”

That's a key administrative post? - PointOfLaw Forum

From the White House, a news release, "President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts, 4/5/11":

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individual to a key Administration posts:

Michael Les Benedict, Appointee for Member, Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise
Michael Les Benedict is a leading scholar of American constitutional history and the Civil War and Reconstruction. He is the author of The Blessings of Liberty, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, and Preserving the Constitution, a selection of essays on the constitutional politics of Reconstruction. Professor Benedict also wrote the American Historical Association’s American Constitution bicentennial essay “Civil Rights and Liberties.” He is emeritus professor of history at The Ohio State University, where he was also an adjunct professor of law, and he has held visiting professorships at Yale Law School and on the law faculties of Hokkaido and Doshisha Universities in Japan. Professor Benedict has served on the board of directors of the American Society for Legal History and is currently Parliamentarian of the American Historical Association. He received his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. from Rice University.

This is undoubtedly familiar territory to the legal scholars among POL's readership, but I had no idea such a creature as a "devise" existed. The University of Colorado at Boulder explained the government body in 2002, when President George W. Bush appointed law school professor Allison H. Eid to the board: "Established by Congress in 1955 to administer the funds given to the government by the late Justice Holmes, the Permanent Committee prepares the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and sponsors the annual Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture."

Here's a little exercise using Google News Search, seeking the terms: "automated, external, defibrillator, saved, life." We learn that indeed the devices do -- save lives, that is. For example...

It just occurred to us to conduct the search after looking through the litigation groups meeting at the American Association for Justice's upcoming summer convention in San Francisco. And there it is, 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 28, "Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Litigation Group Meeting."

Wonder how many lives that meeting will save?

Which is our way of offering the list of the 75 litigation group meetings cited in the AAJ's convention schedule:

NuvaRing Litigation Group Meeting
Welding Rods Litigation Group Meeting
Vaccines Litigation Group Meeting
Pain Pump-Chondrolysis Litigation Group Meeting
Child Sex Abuse Litigation Group Meeting
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (RSD) Litigation Group Meeting
Nursing Home Litigation Group Meeting
Benzene/Leukemia Litigation Group Meeting

Colorado: Litigation Lobby efforts fall short - PointOfLaw Forum

The Colorado Civil Justice League reports (not yet online) that the state's trial lawyers fell far short this session of enacting the ambitious legislative agenda they had envisioned:

Despite the fervent efforts of the various trial lawyer groups to erode Colorado's generally favorable civil litigation climate, the Colorado Civil Justice League had an exceptional 2009 legislative session. The Colorado plaintiffs bar attempted to expand business liability in a number of areas this year (employment law, construction defects, medical malpractice, health insurance, among others) but largely came up short.

Of six bills, only one that was relatively minor (reducing bonding requirements for court costs) made it into law.

Election note: Arizona voters defeat construction-suit bill - PointOfLaw Forum

We posted before the election on the AFL-CIO-backed Proposition 201, which would have imposed a 10-year warranty on new Arizona homes and much broadened homebuyers' right to sue builders over dissatisfaction with their purchases. The state's voters didn't think much of the measure, defeating it by a four-to-one margin. Four years ago Colorado voters lopsidedly defeated a bill to expand construction-defect litigation in that state.

Arizona Prop 201 and construction litigation - PointOfLaw Forum

Tucson Citizen:

Arizona voters will decide this November whether to require builders to provide a 10-year warranty on each new home. Proposition 201, dubbed the Homeowners' Bill of Rights by proponents, would allow homeowners to choose who repairs defects on their homes and guarantee fair compensation for repairs not completed.

The proposition also would prohibit sales contracts from requiring alternate means of resolving disputes, such as mediation and arbitration. Prospective homebuyers would be also allowed to sue over repairs. The measure would reduce the notice period for buyers to request repairs from 90 days to 60 days.

Construction unions are the initiative's big backers, according to the report. Homebuilders are opposing the measure with arguments that it will result in unwarranted litigation; an opposition website is here (h/t Carter). We've followed legislative and initiative fights over construction defect litigation in nearby Colorado.

In Colorado, the "Year of the Trial Lawyer" - PointOfLaw Forum

Although the Colorado Civil Justice League and its allies managed to stop several adverse bills and got others amended, it was still a tough year for liability reformers in the state legislature:

With no less than five separate plaintiff attorney groups actively lobbying at the Colorado Capitol for expanded business liability, this was in many ways the "Year of the Trial Lawyer."

The trial lawyers "invested" over one million dollars in political spending during the last election, and that investment is paying off. Legislators repeatedly voted to weaken the limits on lawsuit abuse that have made Colorado a national leader, making it easier and financially more attractive to sue Colorado's employers and businesses....

With so many plaintiff lawyer groups lined up on the side of expanding liability - workers compensation lawyers, construction defect lawyers, false claims lawyers, employment-law plaintiff lawyers and, of course, the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association itself - it was not a good year for lawsuit sanity.

Colorado construction defects, cont'd - PointOfLaw Forum

Trial lawyers win a round, with Gov. Ritter signing a bill that curtails efforts to contract around prospective litigation between homeowners and developers. Earlier coverage here, here, etc. Sen. Andy McElhany (R-Colorado Springs) notes that the trial bar has been playing offense in the Colorado legislature this year, and with success on a growing list of issues.

Colorado Home Astroturf - PointOfLaw Forum

Astroturf appears to be popular these days in Colorado.

As Walter noted in an earlier post today, the Independence Institute's Dave Kopel writes at Volokh pointing to his column in The Rocky Mountain News that unearths some less-than-full reporting at the Denver Post. It seems the newly left-tilting Colorado legislature is looking at a bill that would prohibit home buyers and home builders from contractually waiving buyers' rights to sue in tort, above any warranty. As Kopel notes:

The main proponent of the pro-lawsuit bill is the Colorado Home Alliance, which obviously played an important role in helping the Post with the article. The article quoted from real estate contracts which had been obtained by the alliance, and relied on the alliance for a text box which listed 19 builders that have used waivers.

Oddly enough, however, the article never quoted a named spokesperson from the alliance. The article, by way of background, discussed a failed 2004 ballot initiative (Amendment 34) that would have removed some legislatively imposed limits on homeowner lawsuits. Clay Vigoda - the political consultant who ran the pro-lawsuit initiative - also happens to be the registered owner of the Colorado Home Alliance Web site.

The Colorado Home Alliance and the Post both deserve praise for warning homebuyers about the dangers of signing a contract without carefully reading all the terms. But it's hard to see why an article that mentions the pro-34 campaign and the alliance wouldn't mention the overlap between the two groups.

But it gets better. Just who is the Colorado Home Alliance? I did a little digging to find out.

Home-defect lawsuit wars - PointOfLaw Forum

Ever since Colorado enacted legislation limiting construction-defect suits, the state's trial lawyers have made it a high priority to roll back those limits. David Kopel leads a discussion at Volokh Conspiracy based on a Denver Post article and his own Rocky Mountain News column. We covered the 2004 Colorado ballot fight on the subject, in which voters rejected a lawyer-promoted initative by a wide margin, here and here.

And so to bed - PointOfLaw Forum

Oregon's med-mal initiative is still hanging (for newer results, revisit/reload linked pages). Wyoming's didn't look good with half the vote counted, but I haven't found updated figures. In the other four states, the lawsuit-reform side seems to have virtually swept the table, dealing a huge defeat to Florida trial lawyers on fees (despite the passage of their two revenge initiatives), a thorough defeat to those in Nevada (who lost badly on their counterinitiatives), scoring a convincing win for California businesses in their quest to reform the unfair-practices law, and lopsidedly defeating the Colorado measure to expand construction litigation. In both hot judicial campaigns, the trial-lawyer-backed candidates lost. See you tomorrow.

Coloradans rejecting Amendment 34 - PointOfLaw Forum

Early returns indicate that Colorado voters are rejecting by a wide margin lawyer-sponsored Amendment 34, which would amend the state constitution to enshrine a much wider right to sue builders over construction defects. With only a scattering of precincts reporting, the Rocky Mountain News reports it losing by a three-to-one margin, and although figures are bound to change as more precincts report, they are unlikely to hold out any hope for the measure's passage. For more on the initiative, see below.

Colorado construction initiative [reprint] - PointOfLaw Forum

Here's another reprinted post, this one from Jul. 19:

Last year the Colorado legislature enacted a law which endeavors to curb burgeoning litigation over construction defects by: 1) giving builders an opportunity to repair flaws before being taken to court; 2) restricting the availability of triple damages; and 3) making it harder for complaints to allege that a defect is present in all units of a multi-unit complex when evidence of defectiveness has been found for only a few units. Now trial lawyers have struck back with a ballot initiative, Amendment 34, which the Secretary of State has certified for the fall ballot. Intended to overturn last year's law, it would create sweeping new rights under the state constitution to sue over building defects. So sweeping would the new rights be, in fact, that homeowners could be exposed to permanently wider liability to later purchasers of their homes over alleged defects in decks, additions and other improvements. ("Fall ballot issue invites lawsuits" (editorial), Rocky Mountain News, Jul. 3). Political strategist Rick Reiter, who represents a coalition of builders and business interests fighting the initiative, "said that the reason the amendment is on the ballot in the first place is because two law firms -- Vanatta Sullan Sandgrund & Sullan and McKenzie Rhody & Hearn -- each wrote checks totalling at least $117,500 to the campaign." (Leia Baez, "Building-suit battle brews", Denver Post, Jun. 29).

Liveblogging the ballot measures tonight - PointOfLaw Forum

As readers of this site know, voters in six states are considering legal-reform initiatives on today's ballot. I'm planning to post regularly updated live coverage tonight of election returns on the measures, with special attention to any instances where the vote totals prove to be close. (I might also post the odd comment on other races of interest.)

The ballot measures are: Florida's Amendment 3 (limiting lawyers' med-mal fees), lawyer-sponsored Amendment 7 (removes confidentiality of medical peer review) and Amendment 8 (strips licenses of doctors who lose three malpractice verdicts); Wyoming's Amendments C and D (authorizes legislative limits on med-mal awards); Oregon's Measure 35 (limits med-mal awards); Nevada's Question Three (limits med-mal awards) and lawyer-sponsored Questions Four (undercuts med-mal reform) and Five (forbids legislative reductions of liability); Colorado's lawyer-sponsored Amendment 34 (expands right to sue over alleged construction defects), and California's Proposition 64 (narrows scope of s. 17200 "unfair competition" law).

The timing: Florida polls close at 8 pm EST, Colorado and Wyoming at 9 pm, Nevada at 10 pm, and California and Oregon at 11 pm. I'm in the Eastern time zone, and intend to stay up until 2 am (11 pm Pacific) if that's needed to follow any still-unresolved contests.

How readers can help: I'll have access to standard online sources that cover these sorts of votes (big-city papers, Secretary of State websites) but in the past those sources have sometimes been slow to post totals, especially on "down-ballot" issues. I won't have much access to local broadcast sources, for the most part. If you've got fresh news on your state to report, such as a local news organization's calling a ballot contest one way or the other, email me at editor (at) pointoflaw - dotcom.

Colo. construction-defects initiative - PointOfLaw Forum

Last year the Colorado legislature enacted a law which endeavors to curb burgeoning litigation over construction defects by: 1) giving builders an opportunity to repair flaws before being taken to court; 2) restricting the availability of triple damages; and 3) making it harder for complaints to allege that a defect is present in all units of a multi-unit complex when evidence of defectiveness has been found for only a few units. Now trial lawyers have struck back with a ballot initiative, Amendment 34, which the Secretary of State has certified for the fall ballot. Intended to overturn last year's law, it would create sweeping new rights under the state constitution to sue over building defects. So sweeping would the new rights be, in fact, that homeowners could be exposed to permanently wider liability to later purchasers of their homes over alleged defects in decks, additions and other improvements. ("Fall ballot issue invites lawsuits" (editorial), Rocky Mountain News, Jul. 3). Political strategist Rick Reiter, who represents a coalition of builders and business interests fighting the initiative, "said that the reason the amendment is on the ballot in the first place is because two law firms -- Vanatta Sullan Sandgrund & Sullan and McKenzie Rhody & Hearn -- each wrote checks totalling at least $117,500 to the campaign." (Leia Baez, "Building-suit battle brews", Denver Post, Jun. 29).

1