Marshall v. Kort

rule, (2) and due to a new the by than the federal constitution extent of reliance law law); body State v. pre-existing of state enforcement authorities on the old stan- dards, Hunt, (3) N.J. 450 A.2d 952 the on effect the administra- J., (structural (Handler, concurring) differ- justice of a application retroactive federal constitu- ences between state and new standards. See also tions, concern, Walker, (Colo.1983). matters of state justify and state traditions a different re- IAnkletter, As in I rule believe the an- constitution). sult under the state’s Sporleder nounced in does not affect the process. truthfinding The information ob- II. pen tained by register is a business holding in Sporleder, Given this court’s I generated record contemporaneous- the apply would nevertheless decline de- ly telephone the use of a and is not retroactively. my view, cision the In ra- addition, likely to be unreliable.1 In tionale of our decision Charnes Di light of the pen regis- differences between Giacomo, 200 Colo. practices ters Chames, and the issue in at necessarily pen does not extend to applicable pen and the clear standards registers “a foregone such that it is conclu registers Smith, police announced in the applies sion that the rule of the later case could reasonably have relied the Su- cases, the earlier because later decision preme my view, rule. Court’s the retro- has in fact in any altered rule active application of the new rule an- Johnson, way.” material United States v. Sporleder nounced would not advance 537, 549, 2579, 2587, U.S. 73 any policies underlying the exclu- (1982). registers L.Ed.2d 202 Pen do not rule, sionary only would result implicate in the same interests that are suppression of relevant evidence. De- See records, volved in of bank the disclosure States, sist United 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. which was issue in As I stat Chames. (1969). way Sporleder: ed dissent in register pen ROVIRA, does not I say J., record authorized to conversation; of any only content joins me in dissent. empha-

records the number dialed. We

sized in Chames that substance of sought protected

the bank records was a

interest, not the fact there

may not have been a financial transac-

tion. The intrusion in into the Chames of a person’s substance economic life is MARSHALL, Donald greater much than recording of tele- Petitioner-Appellant, phone numbers which have been dialed. 666 P.2d at KORT, Haydee Superintendent, falling squarely I case view this as under Hospital, Colorado State Walker, Linkletter v. Respondent-Appellee. 1731,14 L.Ed.2d 601 In Link No. 82SA518. letter, Supreme formulated Court three-part resolving questions test for deal Colorado, Supreme Court of retroactivity with the of new constitu En Banc. tional procedure. rules of criminal Oct. test, Denno, restated Stovall v. 293, 297, (1967), requires a considera tion of served present

1. In obtaining obtained the information basis for a warrrant. pen register from the used form Vela, P.

David Colorado State Public De- fender, DeGette, Sp. Deputy Diana L. State Defender, Denver, petitioner-ap- Public for pellant. Woodard, Gen., Atty.

Duane B. Charles Howe, Gen., Deputy Atty. Chief Joel W. Cantrick, Gen., James, Tracy Sol. M. Asst. Gen., Denver, Atty. respondent-appel- lee.

DUBOPSKY, Justice. appeals Donald Marshall County the Pueblo District Court’s dismiss- al for a writ of habeas corpus. The court ruled that habeas cor- pus proper remedy was not the for failure petitioner, to treat the who had com- been mitted to psychiatric hospital the state af- guilty by ter a verdict of not reason of insanity. We reverse. guilty by was found not

reason of and was commit- Hospital. ted to the Colorado State He sought 16-8-115, release under section (1983 Supp.),1 but the Fremont County District Court denied his release after hearing on November The court’s denial barred the defendant seeking release under section 16-8- 12, 1982, 115 until November at the earli- July est. On filed a petition for a writ of habeas (1983 Supp.) pro- 1. Section requires hospitalization, provided in sec- vides: motion of the defend- eighty days ant made after one hundred fol- hearing The court order a release lowing the date of the initial motion, commitment time on its own on motion of the Except hearing following order. for the first prosecuting attorney, or on motion of the order, the initial commitment unless the court defendant. The court shall order a release good permits, cause shown hearing upon receipt report the defendant of the chief year is not entitled to a officer of the within one institution in which the defend- subsequent previous hearing. longer ant is to a committed that the defendant no alleging eligible ever District Court become is to County Pueblo have security hospital provide in the maximum him training his confinement in “street Hospital “ordinary State Pueblo survival” or unit at Colorado social skills.” The treatment, partic- for lack of request was unlawful does receiving training he no ularly Hospital; because from the Colorado State instead “ordinary or in social “street survival” alleges he because of refusal of alleged that petition skills.” also the hospital him, His to treat he has been officials was denied at the No- reason his release right denied “the to ‘earn his gradually ” he vember 12th was that constitut- society.’ release back into mainstream himself, chiefly because he danger ed a to requests only He that the at a hear- court properly ready was not socialized and not legality determine the of his incarcera- integrated to into life” without be “street tion.3 We conclude that petitioner the is preparation. legality entitled to a determination of the and, prove of his confinement if he can his evidence; The district court did not take allegations, remedy a that appro- addresses petition instead on it dismissed the the ba- priate short treatment of immediate re- petition sis that a for a of writ habeas lease. corpus 13-45-103(2)(b), under section proper way C.R.S. was not the to 13-45-103(2)(b)permits Section is challenge of lack treatment. The district corpus suance of a writ habeas cases petitioner court held the was not enti- that “[wjhere, original the though imprisonment tled to because asserted release of an fail- lawful, act, omission, yet by was some or him, and, ure of officials to treat subsequently place, event which has taken further, petitioner only the that could the party has to his become entitled dis he released when “has no abnormal mental _” charge proceed- corpus In habeas likely condition would be to which cause ings, judicial an inquiry generally investi- is dangerous him to be either to himself or to gation validity of petitioner's a con- the community others or to the reason- hearing. finement the time the White § 16-8-120(1), ably foreseeable future.” Rickets, (Colo.1984); P.2d (1978).2 Implicit the district Cronin, Ryan Colo. P.2d was an ruling assumption court’s that the (1976); Erickson, Crumrine v. only remedy corpus pro- available habeas (1974); P.2d 148 McGill v. ceedings is from all confinement. Leach, 180 Colo. Koch, asserts that habeas North v. Rickets, proper is method noted in com As we White plea judiciary the into guilty mitted after a of not reason “intervention the the challenge programs by a lack of treatment. corrections to administration of petitioner’s allegation If the true is most seri- is that he executive officials reserved for rights, from maximum ous fundamental denied release se violations of curity Hospital allegation that effect to unit of Colorado State an to is essential any not claim properly because he was socialized and relief.” ready integrated not into at 241. Here the asserts “street life,” presumably way then he can that circumstances of his community reasonably Assembly applicable foreseea- 2. The General amended test, future, distinguishing capable test for release 1983. The new as set ble and is (1983 Supp.) forth in is: wrong § capacity and has from substantial charged any person requirements As to crime conduct conform his July allegedly on or after law.” determination a defendant’s the test for sanity commitment, court, from for release his In his asserts brief to this release, eligibility determines, hearing, for conditional be: that if the court after a "That the defendant has no abnormal mental receiving he was not should be he likely condition would be to cause him entitled to release. dangerous to be either to or others or himself governing parole revocation. of the statute deprive him of consti- place of confinement The court held rights. tutionally protected remedy for an [hjabeas corpus is 13-45-103(2)(b), the is- section Under liberty as well restraint of one’s unlawful by conditions triggered is of a writ suance imprisonment. as for an unlawful [Cita- stat- discharge; entitling liberty, his When one entitled tion.] however, that dis- ute, specify does though in the constructive even remedy available charge the sole state, actually imprisoned, fact, section 13-45- such conditions. “more onerous imprisonment becomes the court 101(1), commands cir- such than the law allows.” Under corpus “unless the writ of habeas to issue cumstances, remedy he resort to the itself, or from appears entitled to be and is annexed, party can the documents physical confinement and released from nor admitted to bail discharged neither be custody. Ex to a constructive restored (Em- relieved.” any other manner nor in Rider, 797, P. parte Cal.App. 195 50 13-45-103(1), 6 phasis supplied.) Section Thus, 486, any restric- Id. 374 P.2d 353. procedure for the out the sets legal restraint that sub- excess return of the writ follow court to infringes rights may be stantially on basic corpus, concluding that “[t]he corpus, even if through remedied habeas summary way to proceed in a court shall discharge not result. total does testimony the facts settle jurisdictions have also Many other civ- arguments parties of all interested and Rider, Parte reached this conclusion. Ex any, if are as well as of illy, there Schooley, held that a cited the court person holds him prisoner and the who corpus may prison command writ of habeas dispose prisoner permit officials to consultations between require.” (Emphasis sup- may the case as attorney. The writ is avail- prisoner and open-ended relief accords with plied.) Such determined, able, pris- when the the court “The the essential the writ: which, right deprived of some oner “is very nature of the writ demands that it be confinement, lawfully he is enti- even his flexibil- administered with the initiative and _” A tled 195 P. at 966. number miscarriages justice ity to insure prison courts have also held that onerous its reach are surfaced and correct- within through may remedied habe- Nelson, ed.” Harris v. 394 U.S. corpus, grounds on the that such condi- as (1969).4 1082, 1086, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 89 S.Ct. illegal liberty. restraints on tions constitute Swenson, 249, This held that relief short Wilwording v. court has 404 U.S. 92 (1971); through 407, ha- Jackson discharge of total is available 30 Wilson, Carlson, Schooley v. cert. (7th Cir.), v. corpus. In 150 707 F.2d 943 — 189, 483, —, denied alleged 104 S.Ct. 78 374 P.2d 353 an U.S. Ralston, 665 (1983); Albers v. imprisoned in violation L.Ed.2d 167 parole violator was addition, 27-10-116(l)(b), Although upheld stringent more re- 11 C.R.S. we have In section mentally persons procedures who lease ill recognizes that relief short of charges by acquitted have been of criminal rea- through corpus: is available civilly persons than for who are son committed, receiving Any person evaluation or treatment Chavez, People v. 629 P.2d 1040 see under of this article is (Colo.1981), 11 C.R.S. section pursuant entitled to the court (1982) provides: 13-45-102, 1973, provisions of section general assembly hereby declares that the setting for release to a less restricted within or (a) purposes of this article are: To secure for treating facility without a or release from a mentally person who ill such each treating facility adequate medical and be suited to the care and treatment will psychiatric care and treatment is not adminis- person and to insure that such needs of the tered. skillfully are and humane- care and treatment (1973) provides for Section respect per- ly with full for the administered habeas relief in civil cases. integrity: personal dignity .... son's

223 Hanberry, v. (8th Cir.1981); Cook F.2d 812 have a constitutional (5th Cir.), cert. denied 442 Plante, 596 F.2d 658 to treatment. Scott 691 932, 2866, 634, 61 L.Ed.2d 301 (3d Cir.1982), F.2d aff'g 641 636-37 Parker, Mead v. (1979); 464 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir.1981); F.2d 117 Donaldson v. Cardwell, Cir.1972); Armstrong v. 457 O’Connor, 507, (5th Cir.1974), 493 F.2d 527 Davis, (6th Cir.1972); In re 25 grounds, vacated on other 563, 95 384, Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d (1975); Davis v. Hazelet, (1979); Hamrick v. 209 Kan. Balson, (N.D.Ohio 461 F.Supp. (1972); Haynes, McIntosh 497 P.2d 273 1982); Wyatt Stickney, F.Supp. (Mo.1977); Cupp, Bekins v. S.W.2d (M.D.Ala.1971), Wyatt sub nom. aff'd (1976); Common 274 Or. Aderholt, (5th Cir.1974); 503 F.2d 1305 Hendrick, wealth v. Pa. 280 A.2d Cameron, see also Rouse v. 373 F.2d Dale, Hackl v. 299 S.E.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1966) (constitutional 453-54 prob (W.Va.1982).5 McIntosh, court, con lems with non-treatment of criminal com struing a habeas statute similar to the Col adoption mittees led to provi of D.C. Code statute, noted, orado “If [the statute] giving right treatment); sion Davis v. read to allow habeas relief when a Watkins, (N.D.Ohio F.Supp. 1196, person discharged, could be it would mean 1974) (“the State, upon committing an indi prisoner could be confined under vidual ‘until regains sanity,’ he incurs a most onerous conditions in violation of the responsibility such care as is prohibition against pun cruel and unusual reasonably calculated to achieve opportunity ishment without to be re Pardue, United States v. goal.”); lieved from that condition.” 545 S.W.2d at F.Supp. (D.Conn.1973) (confining pris incompetent trial, oner to stand without Here, petitioner alleges treatment, that he is eighth raises serious and four being “illegally pro- held due issues). addition, without teenth amendment cess of law” because he has been denied a (1978) section pro right Although to treatment. this court vides that in petitioner’s situa previously issue, has not addressed the sev- psychiatric shall receive “care and 6 eral courts have held that involuntarily treatment.” Although we need not decide 5. A few holding challenges states have held that habeas prison cog is remedy not available to proceedings); conditions of incarcera nizable in habeas v. La Carafas See, Caldwell, 795, vallee, 234, e.g., 1556, tion. Brown v. Ga. 231 391 U.S. 88 20 L.Ed.2d (1968) (federal People 204 S.E.2d 137 ex rel. Willis v. 554 habeas statute affords relief Corrections, 382, Department confinement). 51 Ill.2d 282 short of release from But Bell of cf. Willis, 520, 6, 1861, Wolfish, N.E.2d 716 however, Both Brown and v. 441 U.S. 526 n. predicated (1979) were (availability on the existence of 1867 n. 60 L.Ed.2d 447 statutory procedures correcting prison prison for con habeas relief for conditions remains ditions; statutory procedures in open question). Colorado no provide a means to address lack of treatment. jurisdictions Some federal also adhere to the Schauer, F.Supp. In Romero v. only view that habeas relief is available (D.Colo.1974), the federal district court held confinement, illegal form release from provision gives persons criminally challenges prison and that conditions thus right committed a and that their See, cognizable proceedings. are not in habeas equal protection rights they are violated if are Sisneros, (10th e.g., United States v. 599 F.2d 946 given civilly the same care as those commit- Cir.1979); Hunt, (5th Granville v. 411 F.2d Moreover, Chavez, ted. in 629 P.2d at Cir.1969); United States ex rel. Broadnax v. DeR gov- statutory we noted that the scheme obertis, (N.D.Ill.1983). F.Supp. We be erning "contemplates criminal committees lieve that this view does not accord with the present the defendant’s care and need for treat- corpus, and rationale addition, or with ment ... will be addressed.” In weight authority, particularly of case Standing Committee on ABA Standards for Supreme decisions of the United States Court justification Criminal Justice finds no for treat- concerning scope of federal habeas mentally prisoner any a committed disabled Swenson, Wilwording differently relief. hospital civilly within the com- (1971) (alternative patients mitted "in terms of access to tele- petition- petitioner’s The district court here directed the time merits of the at this claim, hear provided committing a forum should in er to the court Fremont serious claims.7 such County for of whether state consideration their ignoring officials are statuto- have con- courts that The other petitioner.8 The dis- ry duty to treat the found that denial of sidered this issue have implies petition- that the statutory right to trict court’s order either a constitutional or through the to those committed treatment failure to receive may er seek relief for process cognizable criminal in habeas treatment under the Richardson, proceedings. Williams v. (1983 Supp.). section Cir.1973) (lack F.2d 358 of treatment only portion of that statute which con- criminally cognizable ha- ceivably could allow a court to consider the Rouse, proceedings); failure to receive treatment is subsection (denial statutory to treatment provides pertinent part: insanity acquittees cognizable in habeas The court shall order a release examina- proceedings); Coughlin, Stachulak v. tion of the defendant when a current one (N.D.Ill.1973) (habeas hearing F.Supp. 686 already or has not been furnished required alleging for sex offenders lack of prosecution either the or defense moves treatment); Superintendent, Nason for an examination of defendant at a (lack 233 N.E.2d 908 Mass. different institution or different ex- incompetent treatment for those to stand perts. The court order addition- cognizable proceedings); trial in habeas examination, supplemental al or investi- Warden, 86 Nev. Maatallah (1970)(claim gation, study which it deems P.2d 122 of lack of treatment neces- incompetent cogni for those to stand trial sary proper to a consideration and deter- proceedings); People zable ex question eligibility mination of the Smith, rel. Perrello v. 364 N.Y.S.2d release. court set the matter (failure 47 A.D.2d 106 of rehabilita for release after it has received cogniza tion institute treatment reports all of the which it has ordered proceedings). ble in habeas under this section. When none of said reports eligible indicate the defendant is If the not heard in this release, request the defendant’s for a petitioner, McIntosh, may hearing may by be denied the opportunity left “without the to relieved condition.” 545 S.W.2d at 650. court if the defendant is to unable show [his] phones, correspondence rights, appropriate allegations peti- of tion, factual [and the] dismissing to treatment.” ABAStandards Criminal Jus- the trial court did not err in for 7, 1984). commentary (adopted Aug. petitioner’s corpus tice 7-10.8 request for habeas relief. Rickets, 239, rights (Colo.1984). The committee recommends ac- that the v.White 684 P.2d 242 contrast, prisoners petitioner corded to committed con- specifically should be In this rights alleged rights. sistent with the enumerated in the stan- has violation of his constitutional respect legal prison- dards with to the status of We need not reach here the substantive issue of ers. ABA petitioner process right See Standards Criminal Justice whether the has a due to for (1982 Supp.). yet 23-1.1 as the district court has not held hearing a on the issue. Recently, we ruled that a had who Depart- been committed to the of the Ironically, sought first a writ of ment of Corrections an indefinite term un- corpus County habeas Court, in Fremont District Act, der the Colorado Sex § Offenders 16—13— but the district court there denied the 203, 8 C.R.S. a was not entitled to seek improper writ because of venue. Venue in ha- Logan Hospital through transfer to Fort Mental laid, corpus properly cases is in accord- petition corpus. a for a writ of habeas There 98(b)(2), county ance with C.R.C.P. in the where we noted that the complained place. the action of took Evans v. Court, [petitioner alleges only place that the his District 194 Colo. P.2d 572 814 (1977). Schauer, confinement should be altered. He does not To the extent that Brisbin v. (1971) may assert that require circumstances of his 176 Colo. place cases, deprive of confinement constitu- a different criminal him of result in commitment tionally protected rights .... we overrule In the absence that decision. proof any (court other of an offer of P.2d 1029 by way person he is which a adjudged incompe- that would indicate that commits evidence tent to trial jurisdiction for release. stand retains to eligible protect oversee commitment and to his face, this section does not On its rights). part constitutional As of the challenge any basis commitment, supervision court’s over the of his confinement his lack of empowered enjoin any is also actual Therefore, allegations treatment. require mistreatment and correction petition before us are to en- sufficient contrary conditions that are hearing title the to a on his re- Bell, of the commitment. quest for habeas relief. Crawford Cir.1979). The has court also dismissing The district court’s order power the inherent to enforce its remedial petitioner’s writ of habeas re- contempt orders in proceedings. Austin versed, the case for rein- and is remanded Denver, City County on statement and a (1964). its merits. The Criminal Code is similar civil to the ERICKSON, C.J., dissents, statute in providing commitment that the and ROVI- RA, J., purposes shall be for commitment of “care joins dissent. § psychiatric treatment.” 16—8— See ERICKSON, Justice, dissenting: Chief 105(4), (1978); Chavez, view, respectfully my I dissent. habe- (Colo.1981); see also is not means to available as a Romeo, Youngberg compliance existing statutory force (1982); ABA procedures. Justice, for Criminal Standards Criminal Standards, petitioner was to the Mental Health Stan- Justice §§ 7-10.8, pursuant Commentary state dard 27- cf Code, (1982). following a 10-101 Criminal verdict not & However, statutory guilty by insanity. procedures govern- reason of Criminal commitment, treatment, person provides Code found not re- civil and re- sponsible post-trial procedures for a crime lease differ from the reason of person govern guilty until he to be which found not be committed is found § 16-8-105(4), eligible insanity under release. 8 reason of the Criminal Code. Release be obtained insanity adjudication pre- An in a results person committed “has no sumptive men- continuation the state of likely mental condition which would until incapacity tal it has been shown dangerous cause him to be to himself or Chavez, been sanity has restored. community others or the reason- Persons P.2d at 1048. who have committed § 16-8-120(1), ably future.” foreseeable criminally criminal but who are acts (1978). responsible insanity reason of com- are statute, per protection under the a Once committed mitted for their own and for the guilty by public, public son not protection found reason of of and such subject supervision justify remains of the safety considerations distinct stan- committing empow governing court. The court is dards commitment and release. ered, 1052-53; example, to order a release hear 629 P.2d at see v. also Jones ing, may grant States, 354, 103 and a full or conditional United U.S. release, (1983). “may any and order additional or The differ essential examination, supplemental investigation, proce or ence the criminal between and civil study proper recognized a necessary provisions which deems dures is question eligibility of consideration civil statute expressly commitment §§ 16-8-115(1) scope for release.” procedures & limit the various (1983 Court, Supp.); persons pur- v. protections Parks District committed cf. § See, judicial legislature ince of the and creates a e.g., 27-10-113 Article 27.

suant to corpus any person remedy question for those who the treat- (availability of habeas § article”); being 27- found they to this ment receive after not “pursuant detained persons insanity. 10-116(l)(a) (right to treatment for a reason of guilty of crime “under view, corpus is my In a of habeas writ article”). providing proce- Authorities this compliance with stat- not available to force civilly com- dures and remedies by directing utory procedures duties and applicable are not to commitments mitted hospital provide officials to state Code. pursuant to Criminal patients. care and treatment to their case, the court found that In this district Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 Cir. Granville v. offi- petitioner’s assertion Sisneros, 1969); see also United States failed to treatment did not cials had (10th Cir.1979); Cognato bring him within the ambit of the habeas Ciccone, (8th Cir.), cert. de 558 F.2d relief corpus permits statute which habeas nied, L.Ed.2d following lawful confinement when a sub- (1977). corpus proceeding A is habeas party entitles a sequent act or omission proper challenge a method to § 13-45-103(2)(b), discharge. confinement, including lack of treat (1978). discharging writ ment, are avail when other forms of relief that, having corpus, the court concluded See, Caldwell, e.g., able. Brown v. 231 Ga. Code, been committed under Criminal (1974) (inmate griev 204 S.E.2d 137 released could be from ances must first be raised within the de statutory he met the criteria and, partment upon of corrections an ad specified section 16-8-120. The court determination, through verse the courts in any allegations of lack treat- stated injunction; the nature of mandamus or ha- could and should be directed to the ment available); corpus is not ex rel. committing attention of the court. Corrections, Department Willis v. (1972) (allega Ill.2d 282 N.E.2d 716 majority petition- The now holds that the allegations of lack of are tions of lack of treatment are to be ad er’s treatment through comprehensive cognizable corpus proceeding. a habeas dressed administra corpus, program by department a tive undertaken The of writ of habeas corrections; however, unavailable). person is to determine whether a unlawfully Cronin, Ryan confined. that, alleges Petitioner since his confine- (1976). hospital, ment at the state he has received essence of habeas is an attack in “ordinary no instruction social skills” confinement, legality or duration of training regard and no treatment or the function of the writ is to secure release statute, “street survival.” Under the how- illegal custody. Preiser v. Rodri- ever, is entitled to release guez, longer danger when he is no to himself or Bell, Crawford community to others or to the in the rea- F.2d at 892. § sonably foreseeable future. statute,

Colorado’s habeas which 8 C.R.S. does not case, interpret provides allege being we must the treatment which is person custody may allege provided statutory that a in his is not directed to the petition “any proper fact to show either that the criteria for release. In a imprisonment directing detention is unlawful or can obtain an order provided that he is then entitled to his that he but §§ 13-45-103(1) ....” & court cannot direct what treatment should (1973)(emphasis Question supplied). relief Concerning be offered. In re: Review, be afforded under the statute is Judicial 199 Colo. discharge petitioner. The relief in this If the state majority prov- afforded duty pro- invades the case comply failed to with its type of care and treatment vide statute, required by the nature mandamus avail-

relief court, through committing by vir-

able jurisdiction continuing of the court’s

tue Barber, See Lamm v. petitioner.

over Board Edwards, County Commissioner v. (1970) (writ of man- justified statutory duty

damus where a complied not been a statutory

has with or met).

responsibility has been that, agree

I cannot habeas cor- absent

pus, would be left without opportunity to obtain relief from his

present I conditions. would therefore af-

firm the the writ

corpus. say

I am authorized that Justice RO- joiqs

VIRA me in this dissent.

TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, Petitioner, HALL,

Cathy Respondent.

No. 83SC2. Colorado,

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

Nov.

Case Details

Case Name: Marshall v. Kort

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Oct 22, 1984

Citation: 690 P.2d 219

Docket Number: 82SA518

Court Abbreviation: Colo.