Clyncke v. Waneka

The court of appeals acknowledged that, in order to reach the result adopted by the majority today, it would have to change the "and" in the language of section 13-21-119(4)(b)(D(B), C.R.S. (2006), to an "or," but held that such a change was necessary because of policy considerations. Waneka v. Clyncke, 134 P.3d 492, 497 (Colo.App.2005). The majority, by contrast, finds that it can reach the same result without rewriting the statute. Because I believe that a change from "and" to "or" is in fact required to reach the majority's outcome, and because I believe such a change is improper, I…