Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Gilford v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 30, 2000No. 99SC79Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Hobbs

I

I respectfully concur in part and concur in the result. In my view, section 27-10-109(2), 8 C.R.S. (1999), provides the means by which notice should be given to the respondent in a long-term commitment proceeding, and does not implicate jurisdiction. I agree with the court of appeals' conclusion that the probate court had personal jurisdiction over Gilford based on section 27-10-111(4), 8 C.R.S. (1999). While I agree with the majority that the probate court's long-term commitment order cannot stand, I do not base this decision on the lack of jurisdiction over Gilford, but rather on a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. AviComm, Inc. v. Colorado Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  2. Colorado Ground Water Commission v. Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  3. In the Interest of ClintonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  4. People v. MedinaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1985
  5. Hultquist v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API