30 results for 'judge:"Hood"'.
J. Hood finds the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to merge her criminal trespass and burglary convictions for sentencing purposes. The trespass conviction involves a subset of the elements of second-degree burglary and, therefore, is a lesser-included offense. Meanwhile, although the court's error was not obvious, double jeopardy violations like the one at issue here require a reversal of a defendant's lesser conviction and resentencing to allow for a merger of the crimes. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2024CO25, Categories: Burglary, Double Jeopardy, Trespass
J. Hood finds the district court improperly excluded portions of a video to the jury that shows the defendant refusing to test for suspicion of DUI. This error influences the fairness of the trial, and most likely the jury’s verdict. The defendant has since died, but the portion of the opinion on the administrative definition of “refusal” is remanded for a new trial. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 2024CO20, Categories: Evidence, Jury, Dui
J. Hood finds for a national fraternity organization in claims contending a local chapter used its trademark despite entry of a cease and desist order following rescission of insurance coverage as precipitated by the admission of ineligible female members, as the local chapter continued to identify itself with the national organization despite failing to make efforts to remove female members.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Michigan, Judge: Hood, Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv12817, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trademark
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hood finds a magistrate judge's probable cause hearing is a final order subject to appeal by a criminal defendant. Once a decision is made on whether to bind a case over to criminal court, the magistrate cannot rehear any issue and, therefore, has fully resolved the case. The decision does not become appealable until the magistrate memorializes it in writing; therefore, defendant's appeal was timely filed within 21 days of the written opinion.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2024 CO 15, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Judiciary
J. Hood finds the appeals court erroneously determined Colorado law requires a police officer to activate their lights and sirens for the entirety of a high-speed chase to be entitled to immunity for any personal injuries. The language of the statute includes no such language and allows for the application of immunity during any time period when an officer uses lights and sirens. Therefore, the officer who caused a fatal collision during a high-speed chase is entitled to immunity on wrongful death claims because he activated his lights well before he reached the intersection at which the collision occurred. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 2024CO9, Categories: Immunity, Wrongful Death
J. Hood finds the appeals court erroneously applied an abuse of discretion standard to the trial court's ruling on restitution. Current Colorado law requires a trial court to consider restitution alongside every criminal conviction, which allows for application of a clear error standard, given the issue in this case was one of proximate causation, which is exclusively fact-based. Regardless, the trial court properly imposed restitution for damage to the victim's vehicle because his decision to swerve in front of defendant as he rode away on a stolen bicycle was foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: 2024CO6, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Restitution
J. Hood upholds the decision awarding an insurer summary judgment in claims seeking coverage for an accident in which a vehicle driven by the insured's son collided with a motorcycle because the mother was not required to seek her minor son’s authority upon selecting lower liability coverage, since he was underaged family member covered under the policy. Affirmed.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals, Judge: Hood, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: 364569, Categories: Insurance
J. Hood finds for a mental health organization after a client with cerebral palsy and other diagnoses was initially denied Medicaid-funded services because the organization eventually provided the services during the appeal process, rendering the issue moot. However, damages for past noncompliance may be litigated. Affirmed in part.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals, Judge: Hood, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 363697, Categories: Civil Procedure, Medicaid
J. Hood finds the trial court properly capped the bond amount at $25 million and denied the prevailing party's request for additional security at the conclusion of the trial. The state of Colorado's $25 million cap on supersedeas bonds is not unconstitutional. Although it overlaps with this court's rule requiring a liable party to post a bond worth 125 percent of the damages award, that rule is not mandatory and allows a trial court to order any bond amount, which reconciles any conflict between the two. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 2023CO59, Categories: Constitution, Damages, Contract
J. Hood finds the appeals court erroneously overturned the jury's verdict in favor of the rescuer. Although the assailant's theft of the cab and subsequent vehicular assault may have seemed unusual, it was within the scope of foreseeability and part of a single course of conduct that rendered the cab company liable for the rescuer's injuries.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 2023CO56, Categories: Tort, Negligence
J. Hood finds that the lower court should have held that actions in which a husband's trust funded a supplemental care trust constituted a payment made for the benefit of plaintiff, an "institutionalized spouse," in claims seeking Medicaid benefits following the husband's death. Affirmed in part.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals, Judge: Hood, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 356756, Categories: Civil Procedure, Medicaid, Trusts
J. Hood finds defendant and all other individuals have a protected privacy interest in their internet search history, even when revealed only by IP address and not name; therefore, law enforcement officials are required to include exact information when they submit a search warrant for such information. Therefore, in this case, the government's search warrant parameters, which included Google searches for a specific address involved in a suspected arson that had been searched for within 15 days of the crime, satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements and allowed the court to issue the warrant. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: 2023CO53, Categories: Constitution, Search, Arson
J. Hood finds that the lower court improperly granted the township summary judgment after a company was denied a tax exemption for personal property because the township deprived the company of due process by failing to explain appeal document requirements. Reversed.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals, Judge: Hood, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: 361888, Categories: Tax, Due Process
J. Hood finds that the trial court properly suppressed defendant's confession to killing a man because the state failed to prove he had voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Detectives befriended defendant, a homeless teenager, before making affirmative misrepresentations that he would walk out of the police station that day and that the Miranda warning was just a formality, which, combined with the timing of the misrepresentations, made his waiver involuntary. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 22SA350, Categories: Miranda, Murder
J. Hood finds that defendant was not entitled to provide the jury trying his attempted extreme indifference murder case with a definition of universal malice. "Universal malice" is not a technical term, as a reasonable person of common intelligence would know that, as it applies to a homicide, it means "a willingness to take life indiscriminately." Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 21SC564, Categories: Murder, Jury Instructions