Shook v. Pitkin Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 911 (Colo. Ct. App. June 18, 2015):
Footnote 4 The district court denied Shook's request to take judicial notice of the county attorney's website. However, Shook supplied a copy of the webpage ( http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Attorney-Pitkin-County ), dated December 3, 2014, in her reply brief and requested that we take judicial notice of its contents. The contents of a webpage on a specific date and time are not subject to reasonable dispute, see CRE 201(b), and Shook complied with the requirements of CRE 201(d). Moreover, as an official publication, the county attorney's website is self-authenticating, see CRE 902(5), and its statements setting forth the activities of the office fall within an exception to the hearsay rule, see CRE 803(8). See Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 551 (D. Md. 2007) (applying federal rules). Therefore, we take judicial notice of the contents of the county attorney's website on December 3, 2014. See CRE 201(f) ("Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding."); see also Prestige Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850, 852 (Colo. 1983) (appellate courts, as well as trial courts, may make use of CRE 201).
Share this article: