Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy/Cross-Respondent v. Outdoor Design Landscaping, LLC, and Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Francisco Cuevas.
Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy/Cross-Respondent v. Outdoor Design Landscaping, LLC, and Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Francisco Cuevas.
Opinion
1
Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent
v.
Outdoor Design Landscaping, LLC, and Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
Francisco Cuevas. Respondent
No. 23SC659
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
July 1, 2024
Court of Appeals Case Nos. 22CA301 & 22CA1108
Petition and Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a provision in a utility's tariff purporting to limit the utility's liability only applies to customers of the utility.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the General Assembly had not expressly delegated authority to the Public Utilities Commission to approve a tariff limiting tort liability in derogation of common law.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Respondent was not a "person" subject to the notification requirements of the High Voltage Safety Act, § 9-2.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2023).
Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting section 9-2.5-104(2), C.R.S. (2023) such that it renders the words "results in," "caused by the contact" and "due to the contact" superfluous.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Opinion
1
Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel Energy, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent
v.
Outdoor Design Landscaping, LLC, and Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
Francisco Cuevas. Respondent
No. 23SC659
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
July 1, 2024
Court of Appeals Case Nos. 22CA301 & 22CA1108
Petition and Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a provision in a utility's tariff purporting to limit the utility's liability only applies to customers of the utility.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the General Assembly had not expressly delegated authority to the Public Utilities Commission to approve a tariff limiting tort liability in derogation of common law.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Respondent was not a "person" subject to the notification requirements of the High Voltage Safety Act, § 9-2.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2023).
Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting section 9-2.5-104(2), C.R.S. (2023) such that it renders the words "results in," "caused by the contact" and "due to the contact" superfluous.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Opinion
Court of Appeals Case Nos. 22CA301 & 22CA1108
Petition and Cross-Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a provision in a utility's tariff purporting to limit the utility's liability only applies to customers of the utility.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the General Assembly had not expressly delegated authority to the Public Utilities Commission to approve a tariff limiting tort liability in derogation of common law.
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Respondent was not a "person" subject to the notification requirements of the High Voltage Safety Act, § 9-2.5-102(1), C.R.S. (2023).
Whether the court of appeals erred in interpreting section 9-2.5-104(2), C.R.S. (2023) such that it renders the words "results in," "caused by the contact" and "due to the contact" superfluous.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.