The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of January 7, 2021, and January 11, 2021. 

On March 11, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in declaring a mistrial rather than dismissing the case for violation of the petitioner’s speedy trial rights.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before April 8, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 29, 2020.

On September 22, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory right to speedy trial.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 19, 2020.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of February 8, 2021.

On March 15, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the respondent’s motion to strike testimony of the petitioner’s treating physician.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before April 12, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 31, 2020.

On September 2, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the prosecution’s motion to exclude evidence in the absence of an insanity plea.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 2, 2020.  The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of December 14, 2020.

On January 6, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion to quash service.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 3, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of January 15, 2021.

On February 1, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for State pay of expert witnesses and investigator.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before March 1, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of June 10, 2020.

On January 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in refusing to certify its dismissal order as final and appealable under C.R.C.P. 54(b).  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before February 22, 2021.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 13, 2020.

On August 14, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court did not err in vacating the magistrate’s order and in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before September 11, 2020.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 13, 2020.

On July 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s request for a preliminary hearing.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before August 28, 2020.  The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 7, 2020.

On September 18, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 16, 2020.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s orders of October 26, November 30, and December 9, 2020.

On December 31, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying a motion to terminate parental rights and instead allocating parental responsibilities to a foster parent.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before January 20, 2021.  The petitioner has 10 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.

On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion for a protective order.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020.  The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

20SA313 In Re Green, M.D., Melanie v Portercare Adventist (Honorable Morris Hoffman)  Jan 2021

The petitioner seeks relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.

On September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion for a protective order.  The respondents are directed to file a written answer on or before October 6, 2020.  The petitioner has 21 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioners seek relief from the trial court’s order of July 14, 2020.

On October 1, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in denying the petitioners’ motion for a protective order.  The respondent is directed to file a written answer on or before October 21, 2020.  The petitioners have 20 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.

The petitioner, Base Commerce LLC, seeks relief from the trial court’s order of April 30, 2019.

On May 16, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add claims against the petitioner.  The respondents—Ying Li, Rasheda Mayner, Manish Sing, and Todd Wasulko—are directed to file a written answer on or before June 17, 2019.  The petitioner has 30 days from receipt of the answer within which to reply.