The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of October 22, 2025.

On October 24, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to preclude expert testimony.  The respondent is directed to file an answer by November 21, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued February 6, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of September 11, 2025.

On September 25, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to sit for a neuropsychiatric independent medical examination.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by October 23, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued January 5, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of June 30, 2025.

On August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a second competency evaluation.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by September 3, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued January 12, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of June 9, 2025.

On July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in ruling that Counsel for Youth could prosecute a motion for termination.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by August 12, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued January 12, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of May 27, 2025.

On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in ruling that a violation of a protection order can serve as the predicate offense for second-degree burglary.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by July 24, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply. 

Opinion issued on March 2, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of May 23 and June 11, 2025.

On June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in ordering a district attorney’s office from a different district to respond to a discovery request.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by July 22, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued January 12, 2026.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of April 24, 2025.

On June 13, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the direct-filing action in light of an existing stay under the Children’s Code.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by July 11, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued September 8, 2025.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of February 19 and May 9, 2025.

On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err ordering the district attorney’s office to reimburse defense counsel for costs incurred in eradicating mistakenly disclosed forensic evidence.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by June 30, 2025.  The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued August 18, 2025.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of June 2 and June 5, 2025.

On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in ruling that, despite granting the People’s motion to exclude mental condition evidence, limited expert testimony might nonetheless be permitted on rebuttal if “considerable” trial testimony is used to establish the defendant’s dishonesty.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by July 7, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioners seek relief from the district court’s order of April 8, 2025.

On May 12, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in granting intervenors’ motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by June 9, 2025.  The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued September 8, 2025.

The petitioner seeks relief from the county court’s order of April 23, 2025.

On May 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the county court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to accept appeal bond and rent payment and refusing to stay the writ of restitution.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by May 19, 2025.  The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued July 24, 2025

The petitioner seeks relief from the juvenile court’s orders of February 12, 2025, and March 25, 2025.

On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the juvenile court did not err in granting the respondent father’s motion for relief from judgment under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5).  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by May 14, 2025.  The petitioners have 7 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Order issued May 30, 2025

The petitioner seeks relief from the juvenile court’s order of February 24, 2025.

On March 19, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the juvenile court did not err in allowing a Counsel for Youth to continue prosecuting a dependency and neglect case on a child’s behalf when the Department of Human Services moved to dismiss the petition.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by April 9, 2025.  The petitioner has 7 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued June 2, 2025

25SA78

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s orders of June 10, June 28, and September 11, 2024.

On February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in (1) limiting the scope and duration of a reverse transfer hearing, and (2) requiring the juvenile to disclose privileged records, witness lists, and summaries of witnesses’ anticipated testimony to the prosecution thirty days before the hearing.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by March 28, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

On February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the respondent should not be enjoined from proceeding pro se in pursuing any claim or request for relief in any pending or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by March 25, 2025.  The petitioners have 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the district court’s order of January 21, 2025.

On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the district court did not err in ruling that computer-generated images created digitally via artificial intelligence can constitutionally qualify as “sexually exploitative material” for purposes of the crime of sexual exploitation of a child.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by March 12, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued October 13, 2025.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 23, 2024.

On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err when it ordered a show cause hearing in the respondent’s criminal case in Douglas County, rather than in a separate civil proceeding where the records requested reside in Jefferson County.  The respondents are ordered to file a written answer by February 14, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to file a reply.

Opinion issued June 9, 2025

25SA9

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of July 9, 2024, and December 6, 2024.

On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in (1) previously granting the prosecution’s request for a continuance, (2) denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for violation of her speedy trial right, (3) prohibiting the petitioner from using exculpatory evidence retrieved from her cell phone, and (4) refusing to disqualify the district attorney’s office.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by January 9, 2025.  The petitioner has 14 days from receipt of the answer to reply.
 

24SA326

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 2, 2024.

On December 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the trial court did not err in prohibiting the prosecution from introducing any of the victim’s journal statements into evidence, as a discovery sanction.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer by January 3, 2025.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the municipal court’s order of October 3, 2024.

On November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause why the municipal court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss her charges on grounds of either preemption or equal protection.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer by December 23, 2024.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer to reply.

Opinion issued December 22, 2025.