Board of County Comm'rs of Summit County v. Rodgers, 355 P.3d 1253

Jason Rodgers and James Hazel (a same-sex couple) built a house in Summit County but were denied a certificate of occupancy (CO) by the County, which cited septic-system deficiencies.
The County offered a temporary CO conditioned on septic repairs, wetlands mitigation, and posting a repair bond; Respondents could not comply and the house was foreclosed.
Respondents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the County violated the Equal Protection Clause by imposing requirements not applied to similarly situated non–same-sex applicants.
In a pretrial management order Respondents identified four discrete allegedly discriminatory actions (bond requirement, wetlands mitigation requirement, County disregarding contractor bid, and discretionary delays).
At trial the County moved under C.R.C.P. 50 for a directed verdict arguing no suitable comparators were shown; the trial court granted directed verdicts on three of the four acts and submitted only the bond claim to the jury.
The jury returned for the County; the court of appeals reversed, holding Rule 50 does not permit partial directed verdicts and that the trial court erred by treating the claim as separate acts rather than a pattern. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether C.R.C.P. 50 permits a trial court to direct a verdict as to some but not all issues within a single claim	Rodgers argued the trial court could enter directed verdicts on discrete acts; Respondents accepted the four-act framing and proposed "or" instructions	County argued Rule 50 directed verdicts were appropriate on discrete issues where no comparator was shown	Court held Rule 50 permits partial directed verdicts (aligning Rule 50 with Rule 56 and federal practice)
Whether the trial court improperly fractured Respondents' equal protection claim (separate acts vs. pattern of conduct)	Respondents argued their claim relied on the totality of the County's actions as a pattern of discrimination	County argued Respondents themselves framed the claim as four separate actionable decisions and proposed instructions using "or"	Court held any error was invited by Respondents’ own pleadings and proposed jury instructions; jury was also told it could consider all evidence for intent

Hansen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 957 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1998) (party cannot invite error and later complain on appeal)
Kaiser Found. Health Plan of Colo. v. Sharp, 741 P.2d 714 (Colo. 1987) (Rule 50 and Rule 56 share the judgment-as-a-matter-of-law standard)
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, 718 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1986) (discussing when an issue should be taken from the jury)
Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462 (Colo. 1989) (directed verdict on one theory of liability when essential element not proven)
Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1996) (preservation rule: to preserve summary-judgment issues for appeal, move under Rule 50 or seek JNOV)
Garrigan v. Bowen, 243 P.3d 231 (Colo. 2010) (state courts may look to federal analogues when interpreting analogous procedural rules)
Transcon. Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Taylor, 265 F.2d 913 (10th Cir. 1959) (federal precedent recognizing directed verdict on crucial issue(s) of fact)