Citing references
Opinions citing Kauntz v. Hca-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007)
22 citing cases
-
2013 COA 129, 328 P.3d 266 Colorado Court of AppealsAugust 29, 2013
HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 817 (Colo.App.2007). Section 12-86.5-203(2), C.R.S.2012 (current statute), abrogated this immunity as to credentialing decisions.
-
2017 COA 106, 414 P.3d 34 Colorado Court of AppealsAugust 10, 2017
¶ 14 If the plain language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the statute as written, unless it leads to an absurd result. 6 Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo. App. 2007); see also People v.
-
313 P.3d 662 Colorado Court of AppealsNovember 23, 2011
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007). In our analysis, we first look at the statute's language and give effect to the words and phrases according to their plain and ordinary meanings. People v.
-
292 P.3d 964 Colorado Court of AppealsDecember 8, 2011
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007).
-
207 P.3d 860 Colorado Court of AppealsOctober 16, 2008
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 817 (Colo.App.2007). We are "not to presume that the legislative body used language 'idly and with no intent that meaning should be given to its language'" Colo. Water Conservation Bd. v.
-
187 P.3d 1207 Colorado Court of AppealsMay 29, 2008
-
211 P.3d 714 Colorado Court of AppealsMay 28, 2009
HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816-17 (Colo.App.2007) (quoting Vigil v.
-
209 P.3d 1210 Colorado Court of AppealsApril 16, 2009
-
187 P.3d 1190 Colorado Court of AppealsMay 29, 2008
While that principle might potentially be deemed inapplicable if giving effect to the statute as written would produce an absurd result, see Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007), we do not view this as such a case.
-
2013 COA 3, 297 P.3d 1028 Colorado Court of AppealsJanuary 17, 2013
. § 2-4-201(1), C.R.S.2012; Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007). 112 Moreover, if the statute is "ambiguous or silent regarding the matter at issue, we interpret the statute to comport with the legislature's objectives."
-
272 P.3d 1106 Colorado Court of AppealsAugust 4, 2011
Carey, 198 P.3d 1223, 1229 (Colo.App.2008); Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 819 (Colo.App. 2007). In our view, this ambiguity cannot be resolved by parsing the language of the statute.
-
298 P.3d 970 Colorado Court of AppealsSeptember 30, 2010
HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816-17 (Colo.App.2007) (quoting Vigil v.
-
262 P.3d 964 Colorado Court of AppealsAugust 4, 2011
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007). We must adopt a construction that will serve the purposes underlying the statute, and we avoid interpretations that lead to an absurd result. *967 Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v.
-
205 P.3d 544 Colorado Court of AppealsFebruary 19, 2009
Co., 22 P.3d at 534 ; see also Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 817 (Colo.App.2007) (“ ‘Any’ means ‘all.’ ”). The General Assembly chose to include the word “any” in the sanctions section of the statute.
-
2013 COA 44, 316 P.3d 4 Colorado Court of AppealsMarch 28, 2013
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007).
-
252 P.3d 486 Colorado Court of AppealsNovember 24, 2010
Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007). When interpreting a statute, our primary duty is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly, looking first to the plain language. Barnes v. Colo.
-
187 P.3d 1207 Colorado Court of AppealsMay 29, 2008
See, e.g., Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 817 (Colo.App.2007).
-
252 P.3d 539 Colorado Court of AppealsFebruary 17, 2011
See Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 817 (Colo.App.2007) ("`Any' means `all.'").
-
197 P.3d 232 Colorado Court of AppealsOctober 2, 2008
Lindoe, Inc., 63 P.3d 353, 358-59 (Colo.2003); Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007); People v. Lenzini, 986 P.2d 980, 982 (Colo. App. 1999). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of statutory language.
-
190 P.3d 806 Colorado Court of AppealsJune 12, 2008
HCA-Healthone, LLC, 174 P.3d 813, 816 (Colo.App.2007). The trial court ruled that INB had no right to participate as a working interest owner in the production of minerals from the Drilled Tracts.
-
2014 COA 122, 338 P.3d 1128 Colorado Court of AppealsSeptember 11, 2014
-
442 P.3d 947 Colorado Court of AppealsNovember 30, 2017
See Kauntz v. HCA-Healthone, LLC , 174 P.3d 813 , 819 (Colo. App. 2007) ("While we can envision how the statute could have more explicitly prohibited patient claims, it is nevertheless clear as to its intended scope, and thus is not ambiguous.").