The Colorado Supreme Court published opinions in four cases today. Below are the summaries of each, with a link to the full opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Shams Abdul-Rahman, Respondent. 2026 CO 33. The supreme court holds that a parolee seeking review of the Colorado State Board of Parole’s decision to revoke parole must exhaust administrative remedies before petitioning a court for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c). The
supreme court concludes that the statutes governing parole revocation appeals, specifically section 17-2-103, C.R.S. (2025), and section 17-2-201, C.R.S. (2025), unambiguously require an administrative appeal before seeking judicial review. Because Abdul-Rahman failed to seek an administrative appeal, the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to review his Crim. P. 35(c) petition. Accordingly, the supreme court vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case with instructions to return it to the postconviction court for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction. Read the opinion.
Bernard E. Sandoval, Petitioner v. City of Colorado Springs, Respondent. 2026 CO 34. The supreme court granted certiorari to review whether the court of appeals properly interpreted section 24-10-106(1)(a)(II), C.R.S. (2024), which waives sovereign immunity when a public entity fails to repair a traffic control signal displaying “conflicting directions,” causing a dangerous condition. The circumstances here involved one driver facing a blank, inoperative traffic light and the perpendicular driver facing a green light at an intersection in the City of Colorado Springs. The supreme court holds that under these circumstances, the traffic control signals displayed conflicting directions, causing a dangerous condition. As a result, Colorado Springs waived its sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the supreme court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Read the opinion.
In re the Marriage of Nicholas Jay Dale, Petitioner and Nicole Jehlicka Dale, Respondent. 2026 CO 35. The supreme court concludes that a purely quantitative reduction in parenting time-i.e., a reduction unaccompanied by qualitative constraints on the manner, location, or environment in which a parent exercises parenting time-cannot amount to a restriction of parenting time rights unless the reduction eliminates parenting time altogether. The court further concludes that a restriction of parenting time rights refers to the complete elimination of any quantity of parenting time (i.e., zero parenting time) or to qualitative constraints on the manner, location, or environment in which a parent exercises parenting time. Thus, a restriction is either a quantitative reduction to zero parenting time or the imposition of qualitative constraints on the manner, location, or environment in which a parent exercises parenting time; any other adjustment is merely a modification. Because the district court in this case did not eliminate or otherwise qualitatively constrain Father’s parenting time, it did not restrict it; instead, it merely modified it. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the best-interests standard rather than the endanger/impair standard. A division of the court of appeals reached the same conclusion. Therefore, its judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded with instructions to return it to the district court. Read the opinion.
Felicia Wright, Petitioner v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent. 2026 CO 36. The supreme court holds that, under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when a debt buyer files a complaint in an action, it must append a copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt. A debt buyer may not use an affidavit to satisfy this requirement if the complaint is otherwise noncompliant. If a debt buyer fails to satisfy this requirement, then the debt buyer may be liable to the debtor for damages, costs, and attorney fees. Read the opinion.