The Colorado Supreme Court issued a split decision on January 26, 2026, in *Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel Energy v. Outdoor Design Landscaping LLC*, affirming parts of the lower court's judgment while vacating other portions in a case that drew significant industry attention.
The case, designated No. 23SC659, involved utility giant Xcel Energy as petitioner and cross-respondent against Outdoor Design Landscaping LLC, which served as respondent and cross-petitioner. Francisco Cuevas was also named as a respondent in the proceedings. The court's ruling came after reviewing decisions from the Colorado Court of Appeals in case numbers 22CA301 and 22CA1108.
Justice Gabriel delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justice Boatright, Justice Hood, Justice Samour, and Justice Berkenkotter in an en banc decision. The unanimous participation of all five justices underscores the importance the court placed on resolving the legal questions presented.
The case attracted considerable attention from the energy industry, as evidenced by multiple amicus curiae briefs filed by prominent organizations. Black Hills Colorado Electric LLC submitted a brief through attorney Greg Sopkin of Denver. The Colorado Rural Electric Association participated through counsel Craig N. Johnson of Lakewood. The Edison Electric Institute, represented by attorneys from Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP and Vinson & Elkins LLP, also weighed in on the proceedings.
The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief through attorneys from Leventhal Puga Braley P.C. and Burg Simpson Eldridge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., indicating the case's broader implications for legal practice in the state.
Xcel Energy was represented by a legal team from Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, including Franz Hardy, John R. Mann, Greg S. Hearing II, Stephanie S. Brizel, and Abigail H. Kregor, all based in Denver. The company's dual role as both petitioner and cross-respondent suggests the case involved complex cross-claims or appeals from multiple parties.
Outdoor Design Landscaping LLC retained counsel from Lambdin & Chaney, LLP, with attorneys L. Kathleen Chaney, Amber F. Ju, and Eric D. Hevenor representing the landscaping company's interests. The firm's designation as both respondent and cross-petitioner indicates the company both defended against Xcel Energy's claims and pursued its own legal arguments.
Francisco Cuevas was represented by multiple law firms, including Connelly Law, LLC through Sean Connelly, The Law Office of Sean McDermott LLC through Sean M. McDermott, and Stuart & Ward LLP through Thomas R. Ward, all Denver-based attorneys. The involvement of multiple counsel for Cuevas suggests complex legal issues or potential conflicts requiring separate representation.
The court's decision to affirm the judgment in part while vacating other portions indicates a nuanced ruling that addressed multiple legal issues with varying outcomes. This type of mixed decision typically occurs when appellate courts agree with some aspects of the lower court's reasoning while finding error in other areas.
The case's path through the Colorado court system began in the Colorado Court of Appeals, which handled the matter under two separate case numbers before the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari. The dual case numbers suggest either related proceedings that were consolidated or separate appeals that were heard together due to common legal questions.
The extensive legal representation and amicus participation highlights the case's significance for utility law and business litigation in Colorado. The involvement of multiple electric companies and industry associations as amici curiae suggests the decision could establish important precedent for utility operations, contractor relationships, or regulatory compliance.
The timing of the decision, issued in late January 2026, positions it as an early precedent-setting case for the year in Colorado's highest court. The en banc nature of the decision, with all five justices participating, gives the ruling additional weight and suggests the court viewed the legal questions as particularly important.
While the specific legal issues and factual background of the dispute are not detailed in the available court record excerpts, the case structure suggests a complex commercial dispute between a major utility company and a landscaping contractor, with potential implications for individual parties like Francisco Cuevas.
The mixed outcome of the ruling indicates that both sides achieved partial victories, which is common in complex commercial litigation where multiple legal theories and claims are presented. The court's careful consideration of various legal arguments, as evidenced by the split decision, demonstrates the complexity of the underlying dispute and the challenges faced by businesses operating in the utility sector.