Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “D.M. v. Zavaras”
Beerheide v. Zavaraspublic domain
997 F.Supp. 1405 (1998) Charles E. BEERHEIDE, Sheldon Perlman, and Allen Isaac Fistell, Plaintiffs, v. Aristedes W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, Gerald M. Gasko, Acting Deputy Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, Dona Zavislan, Food Service Administration, Colorado Department of Corrections, William T. Potter, Volunteer Service Coordinator, Colorado Department of Corrections, and Does 1 Through 10, Def
P.R. v. Zavaraspublic domain
ORDER AND JUDGMENT.* SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate records, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs in each
105 F.3d 670 96 CJ C.A.R. 2065 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,
Rodriguez v. Zavaraspublic domain
42 F.Supp.2d 1059 (1999) Frank D. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Aristedes ZAVARAS, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Corrections, Respondent. No. Civ.A. 96-D-2559. United States District Court, D. Colorado. April 1, 1999. *1060 *1061 *1062
Martinez v. Zavaraspublic domain
LUCERO, Circuit Judge. Convicted of first-degree murder in state court, John Jacob Martinez brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in federal district court arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation was violated. In denying habeas relief, the district court found that Martinez had voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived his right to co
Litwinsky v. Zavaraspublic domain
132 F.Supp.2d 1316 (2001) Timothy LITWINSKY, Petitioner, v. Aristedes ZAVARAS and The Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents. No. 99-K-1234. United States District Court, D. Colorado. January 23, 2001. Andrew Burch Reid, Boulder, CO, for Petitioner. Roger Griffin Billotte, Attorney General's Office Criminal Enforcement Appellate, Denver, CO, f
Houchin v. Zavaraspublic domain
919 F.Supp. 1480 (1996) William C. HOUCHIN, Jr., Petitioner, v. Aristedes W. ZAVARAS, Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, Respondent. Civil A. No. 93-K-2651. United States District Court, D. Colorado. March 28, 1996. *1481 Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, CO, for petitioner. Wendy J. Ritz, Assistant Attorney General, D
Michael Lucius White v. State of Colorado Roy Romer Aristedes Zavaras Dave Holt Roderic Gottula Joseph McGarrypublic domain
TACHA, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, appeals 1 the district court’s decision granting *366 defendants summary judgment on his claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Rehabilitation Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the America
M.M. v. Zavaraspublic domain
BROWN, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff, an indigent inmate confined in the Colorado Women’s Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado, filed this § 1983 civil rights class action alleging that the defendant, Executive Director of the Department of Colorado Corrections, had denied her funds for transportation and medical expenses for abortion services in violation of the 8th a
M.M. v. Zavaraspublic domain
939 F.Supp. 799 (1996) M.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aristedes W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendant. Civil Action No. 96-WM-2010. United States District Court, D. Colorado. September 17, 1996. *800 Mark Silv
James M. Crater v. Roy Romer Aristedes Zavaraspublic domain
60 F.3d 837NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order. James M. CRATER, Plaintiff-Ap
Josephine Brown v. Aristedes Zavaras, Robert Furlongpublic domain
HENRY, Circuit Judge. Pro se plaintiff Josephine Brown appeals the summary judgment order of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vincent Scott Vigil v. Aristedes W. Zavaras and the Attorney General of the State of Coloradopublic domain
EBEL, Circuit Judge. Vincent Scott Vigil, the Petitioner Appellant, is currently serving a twenty-four-year sentence in Colorado state prison for committing sexual assault in the first degree and committing a violent crime with a deadly weapon while committing first-degree sexual assault. Vigil seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right
Jose M. Escobar v. Aristedes Zavaras, Donice Neal, Gary Watkins, J. Early, R. Rodenbeck, and A. Montoyapublic domain
149 F.3d 1190 98 CJ C.A.R. 2818 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. Gary Lee Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he seeks to overturn his sentence of death. We granted Mr. Davis’s request for a certificate of probable cause and a stay pending appeal. 1 We hold as follows: (1) Mr. Davi
Lamle v. Eadspublic domain
Appellate Case: 24-6124 Document: 59 Date Filed: 04/09/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit April 9, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Norsby v. Jensenpublic domain
916 P.2d 555 (1995) Charles NORSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William JENSEN, individually; The Department of Corrections of the State of Colorado; The State of Colorado; Warren Diesslin, in his official capacity as Warden of the Buena Vista Correctional Facility; Michael Perry, in his official capacity as Director or Head of the *556 Regimented Inmate Discipline and Treatment Program at the Buena Vista Correcti
K.W. v. Holtzapplepublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge. Plaintiffs, a group of six students (at the time of the events in question) at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania filed a complaint against defendants, Julie A. Holtzapple, James R. Middleton, Michael C. Giffiths, Degg H. Stark, Susan L. Lantz, Jason D. Friedberg, Lewis A. Marrara, II, Amy A. Badal, Wayne A. Bromfield, Michael A. Smyer, John
Robertson v. City and County of Denverpublic domain
Opinion by Judge VOGT. Plaintiffs, Lawrence M. Robertson, Jr., Sharon Deatherage, Jeffrey Hecht, and David Jewell, d/b/a/ Scotties Guns & Milita-ría, and plaintiff-intervenor, the State of Colorado ex rel. Gale A. Norton (collectively plaintiffs), appeal from the trial court’s judgment entered on remand of their declaratory judgment action against defendants, the City and County of Denver, Ari Zavaras, an
Rueb v. Rich-Frederickspublic domain
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.