Cases

18 F.Supp.2d 1143 (1998) Tyrone L. LEE, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 95-D-682. United States District Court, D. Colorado. August 21, 1998. *1144 *1145 *1146

PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge. William Gibbs and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for Arapahoe County appeal the district court’s disposition of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim brought by a former county employee, Tyrone Lee. Believing he had been terminated in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, Mr. Lee sued the Board of County Commissioners b

Justice KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe appeals the judgment of the District Court, Water Division No. 4 (the water court) denying and dismissing with prejudice Arapahoe County's applications for decrees for conditional water rights for the Union Park Reservoir Project (the Project)-a large water storage project west of the Continental Divi

Justice ERICKSON delivered the Opinion of the Court. The Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County (Arapahoe County), appeals from a judgment of the District Court, Water Division 4 (water court), dismissing Arapahoe County’s applications for conditional water rights decrees in the Gunnison Basin. We affirm the water court’s dismissal of the application for a conditional water rights decree that Ara

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. 1 In this direct appeal from the division one water court, we consider whether Denver may use properly quantified transmountain lawn irrigation return flows ("LIRFs") as a substitute supply of water for its Civil Action ("C.A.") 8685 exchanges. We hold that properly quantified transmountain LIRF's are legally indistinguishable from reusable trans-mountain efflu

881 P.2d 412 (1994) The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, Colorado; John J. Nicholl, in his official capacity as County Commissioner of the County of Arapahoe; Jeannie Jolly, in her official capacity as County Commissioner of the County of Arapahoe; John J. Nicholl, a resident of the County of Arapahoe; and Jeannie Jolly, a resident of the County of Arapahoe, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. E-470 PUBLIC HIGHWA

709 F.Supp.2d 1176 (2010) James E. LARGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING, et al., Defendants. Case No. 05-CV-0270. United States District Court, D. Wyoming. April 29, 2010. *1181 Andrew W. Baldwin, Berthenia S. Crocker, Baldwin Crocker & Rudd, Lander, WY, Bryan Sells, Laughlin McDonald, Meredith Bell-Platts, A

Mr. Justice Hayt delivered the opinion of the court. We will consider the questions raised by the numerous assignments of error in the order in which the same have been presented by counsel. *157By the first assignment of error the regularity of the selection and impaneling of the grand jury finding the indictments is questioned. The

Mr. Justice Bakke delivered the opinion of the court. *159Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, instituted condemnation proceedings to acquire the farm of defendant in error, comprising 480 acres, for use as part of a bombing field auxiliary to the Air Corps Technical School east of Denver. The determination of the value of the farm was submitted to a ju

JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 This appeal from the water court in Water Division 1 represents the latest chapter in litigation over a 1940 water use agreement (1940 Agreement) between the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners (Denver) and the ditch company members of Consolidated Ditches of Water District No. 2 (C

Justice EID delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal involves a portion of a much larger case decided in the water court, Division 1, Case No. 02CW4O3. Opposer-Appel-lant City of Englewood argues that this court should reverse findings by the water court concerning a settlement agreement between various parties and the City and County of Denver. Englewood claims that the water court erred in interpreti

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KANE, District Judge. Background In these consolidated actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaints allege defendants deprived plaintiffs of constitutional rights by removing plaintiffs’ children from plaintiffs’ custody and subsequently placing those children in foster homes. Before me now are two motions for summary judgment filed

Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court. INDEX OF OPINION INtrOGUCtOM ............... ...se asr kee keren + ek en re e e e r eae n e e e aa a ee e e ea ae ee eee. 653 sml 654 I. FACKS .... ...... .. sll sles vy a area a k ea een 6 k ea a arn e n e ea aa na n e e a a a ee e e aa e aa ee es 654 A. The Burlington-Barr Lake System ........

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. Richard Douglas Hackford brought this action seeking to enjoin the State of Utah’s prosecution of the traffic offenses he committed on December 4, 2013, contending that he is an Indian and the offenses occurred in Indian Country. Concluding that Mr. Hackford failed to meet the requirements for avoiding state criminal jurisdiction, the district court den

ORDER These matters are before the court on the separate Petitions for Rehearing En Banc filed by Intervenors Northern Arapaho Tribe and Eastern Shoshone Tribe. We also have responses to the petitions from the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation. Upon consideration, the petitions were circulated to all the judges of the court who are in regular active service and who are not recused. S

TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge. This case requires us to determine whether Congress diminished the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming in 1905. We find that it did. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes jointly inhabit the Wind River Reservation. The State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation challenge a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency granting the Tribes’ a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO VACATE TRIAL AND JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR A NEW TRIAL JAMES A. PARKER, Senior District Judge. In DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO VACATE TRIAL AND JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PERKINS AND MILLER (1) BECAUSE OF IRREGULARITIES; (2) FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; (3) PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S INHERENT POWERS OR RULE 59 Or. 60, AND/OR F

Opinion by JUDGE ROTHENBERG * T1 At issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (the special district), had the constitutional and statutory authority to enter into loans and security agreements with the defendant, Valley Bank & Trust Company (the bank), and to pledge the district's assets as collateral. Because we conclude the spec

PARKER, District Judge. In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff-appellant Dr. Edward J. Rozek (Rozek) appeals from two orders of the district court granting defendants-appellees’ motions for summary judgment on federal claims and dismissing Rozek’s pendent state claims. Rozek, a tenured professor at the University of Colorado, was married to Doris Buffett1 for two years. Shor

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 7, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR TH