- In a 4-3 decision, Justice Hobbs concurred in the majority opinion, which concluded that a police officer's search of the defendant and his vehicle, which resulted in the discovery of marijuana and cocaine, was unconstitutional because the officer's stop was predicated only on the belief that the tree-shaped air freshener hanging from the defendant's-driver's rear-view mirror unlawfully obstructed the defendant-driver's vision.
- In a 4-3 decision, Justice Hobbs concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Martinez, which concluded that the defendant's confession to sexual assault should not be admitted as evidence against him because the defendant indicated that he had a desire to speak with an attorney prior to making the confession.
- In a 5-2 decision, Justice Hobbs concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Martinez that in a first-degree murder case, the defendant's confession to stabbing the victim was not made voluntarily, and therefore was not admissible against him at trial, where, even though the defendant waived her Miranda rights, the defendant's confession was made under "psychological coercion" and "emotional vulnerability" because the questioning officers informed the defendant that the victim had just died from the stabbing wounds; and that the "persistent questioning of the defendant after her emotional breakdown was psychologically coercive."
- In this parolee disenfranchisement case, plaintiff Danielson brought suit against defendant in her capacity as Colorado Secretary of State alleging that a Colorado statute stating that no person "serving a sentence of parole shall be eligible to register to vote or vote in any election" was in conflict with the Colorado Constitution, Article VII, section 10.
Justice Hobbs wrote the opinion of the court, which ruled that the statute wasn't in conflict with the state Constitution and affirmed the trial court's dismissal, stating: "We hold that the General Assembly did not violate article VII, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution by enacting a law that prevents a person who has been convicted of a felony and is serving a sentence of parole from voting or registering to vote. A person who is serving a sentence of parole has not served his or her full term of imprisonment within the meaning of this constitutional provision."
- Hobbs authored the majority opinion which struck down a voter-proposed ballot measure that would have created an environmental conservation agency with a mission of protecting land, wildlife, water, and public resources by resolving conflicts between "economic interests" and "public ownership and values" in favor of the latter. The Majority held that the inclusion of the mission and the creation of the agency constituted two separate subjects, and thus that the initiative violated [Colorado's single subject rule].
- In a bitterly disputed 4-2 decision, Justice Hobbs concurred in the majority opinion, written by Justice Alex J. Martinez which struck down a citizen-sponsored ballot measure that, if passed, would have prohibited Colorado from providing non-emergency government services to illegal immigrants. The Majority characterized the measure as violative of the Colorado's single subject rule because it contained "at least two subjects," that it viewed as "unrelated:" "decreasing taxpayer expenditures" and "restricting unrelated administrative services."
- In a voter-driven ballot measure that, if successful, would have required "English Language Education in Public Schools," Justice Hobbs writing for the majority, recognized the additional, unstated purposes present in the amendment of constraining school boards' traditional power to require bilingual education in public schools. It also found, however, that this effect was not a subject separate from the initiative's central theme of requiring English language instruction. Rather, the purpose of constraining school boards' traditional powers was “a logical incident of adopting structured English immersion.” Therefore, the majority opinion, via Justice Hobbs, found the initiative did not violate the single subject requirement.
- Justice Hobbs wrote the opinion of the court which affirmed the appellate court ruling and held that an employer wasn't responsible for the damages caused by an employee when not acting within the scope of his employment.
- In a bitterly divided 4-3 decision, Justice Hobbs provided the deciding vote when he concurred in the Majority opinion in which the Court adopted the "reverse piercing of the corporate veil" doctrine. This doctrine, previously unrecognized in Colorado, allows a plaintiff to recover against a corporation for the debts/liability of one of its shareholders (as opposed to the traditional "piercing of the corporate veil" doctrine, which allows a plaintiff to recover against a shareholder for debts/liabilities of a corporation in which the shareholder owned shares).
- In a bitterly divided 4-3 decision, Justice Hobbs wrote the majority opinion in a debt collection case, which created a new standard of law to apply to debt collection cases: the least sophisticated consumer standard. Under the standard, the majority noted that correspondence from creditors from debtors will by judged as to whether it sufficiently conveys requisite notices and other disclaimers so that the "least sophisticated" of consumers would understand it. Pursuant, the Majority found that the Creditor violated that standard in this case by "burying" disclosures in "fine print," and by communicating two different deadlines: a 30 day deadline to dispute the debt, and a 39 day deadline to take advantage of the settlement offer.
- Hobbs authored the majority opinion, which concluded that because a county was justified in implementing a complete moratorium on the development of property in that county, so that the impact of development could be studied, even though the county did not specify when the moratorium would end, and even though Colorado law, specially the Land Use Enabling Act only provided for a maximum moratorium of six months.
|
