Sherman Glenn Finesilver

This case involved a class of parents challenging the Pueblo School District 60's decisions to close Hyde Park and Spann elementary schools and to open a new charter school, Pueblo School for the Arts and Sciences, under Colorado's Charter Schools Act. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and related federal education statutes, claiming the actions disproportionately affected minority and low-income students and deprived them of certain benefits. After consolidating hearings on preliminary and permanent injunctions, reviewing extensive testimony from thirty witnesses, and examining over 200 exhibits, the court denied the motion for a permanent injunction and granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the school board's decisions were not motivated by discriminatory intent, did not violate equal protection or due process, and that the Charter Schools Act was constitutional both facially and as applied. Jurisdiction ended with the final order without ongoing court supervision.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved an insurance company, Allstate, seeking reimbursement from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injury protection benefits paid to its insured who was injured in a bus accident caused by a negligent U.S. Army driver at Fort Carson, Colorado. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the United States, as a self-insured entity, was in compliance with the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act and thus not subject to subrogation claims by the insurer. The reasoning centered on the FTCA's provision that the government is liable only to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, and that the coverage provided through the FTCA and FECA was equivalent to that required by state law, precluding the subrogation action under C.R.S. § 10-4-713.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case is a civil forfeiture action in rem brought by the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 881 to seize real properties and currency linked to Philip May's conviction for conspiring to purchase cocaine. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the claimant's motion, ordering forfeiture of the Titan Property, the Residence, and the two sums of currency. The core reasoning was that the facts from the arrest, searches, and conviction established the properties' use to facilitate drug trafficking and the currency's connection to the illegal transaction under the statute, with no genuine issues of material fact.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved a Colorado physician whose medical license was suspended by the Board of Medical Examiners after he declined to undergo an evaluation by the Colorado Physician Health Program; the plaintiff sued two board officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging violations of his property, liberty, privacy, due-process, and search-and-seizure rights. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, asserting immunity. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in full. It held that the officials were immune from damages in their official capacities because they were not “persons” under § 1983 and because the Eleventh Amendment barred suits for damages against the state. In their individual capacities, the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity for initiating proceedings, the remaining defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for following the Medical Practice Act, and the plaintiff’s additional statutory and state-constitutional claims were either inapplicable or unauthorized.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

The case involved claims by Andrea Holdridge against BCS Life Insurance Company and related insurers for denying coverage of her leukemia treatment under a university student health policy, alleging the condition was pre-existing because symptoms appeared before the policy's effective date. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied most of the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact on the policy's effective date and whether the plaintiff had been treated for or advised about the condition beforehand. It granted the plaintiff's motion only to the extent of holding that the pre-existing condition definition in the university booklet controlled over the master policy. The core reasoning applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, requiring that evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and that factual issues be reserved for the jury when they could affect the outcome.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved claims by Astarte, Inc. and Pacific Separator Manufacturing, Inc. (PSMI) against Scott Marshall for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty arising from agreements to license and operate Tilby sugar cane processing technology, including alleged usurpation of corporate opportunities and conspiracy to render PSMI insolvent. After settling with other defendants, the matter proceeded to a bench trial solely against Marshall. The court ruled in favor of Marshall on all claims, finding that the technology had never operated on a commercially viable basis, that plaintiffs' evidence of lost profits and business opportunities was speculative and insufficient, and that out-of-pocket losses had already been addressed in the settlement with other parties. The decision rested on Rule 52 findings that plaintiffs failed to prove their claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a declaratory judgment and breach of fiduciary duty action filed by Marquest Medical Products against former executives Robert McKinnon and Norman Dreyfuss over two consulting and compensation agreements from 1991 and 1992. Plaintiff sought to void and rescind the agreements and recover damages, while Dreyfuss filed a parallel breach-of-contract suit in California federal court. The court granted plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction barring Dreyfuss from prosecuting the California action to prevent duplicative litigation, denied Dreyfuss's motion to stay or dismiss the Colorado case, and granted McKinnon's motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. The core reasoning was that federal rules and policy favor resolving related claims in the first-filed action and that the Federal Arbitration Act and related precedent require sending disputes over contract validity to arbitration rather than the court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a motion by plaintiffs in Oiness v. Walgreen Co. seeking a court determination of damages after a 1991 jury verdict on lost profits was vacated by the Federal Circuit due to erroneous jury instructions and insufficient evidence. Plaintiffs argued that the existing trial record allowed the district court to set the award without a new trial, but defendants contended that a jury must decide the issue. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the motion, ruling that the Seventh Amendment guarantees defendants a jury trial on damages in this action at law and that disputed factual questions about lost profits preclude summary determination by the judge.

procedure

The case was a class action brought by Consumers Gas & Oil, Inc., on behalf of dissolved or inactive farm cooperatives holding unredeemed "Capital Credits" in Farmland Industries, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment due to Farmland's refusal to pay out the credits. After extensive mediation, the parties reached a stipulation of settlement that the court preliminarily approved, and following notice to class members, the court held a fairness hearing. The court approved the settlement, divided the class into four subclasses with varying redemption procedures and timelines, dismissed all claims with prejudice, released the defendants, and retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation until 1996. The decision rested on the arm's-length negotiations, the court's jurisdiction under federal securities, RICO, and diversity statutes, and the absence of any objections indicating unfairness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves claims by John Purvis and Emma Jo Bartlett against Paul Hamwi and others, alleging that Hamwi arranged the 1983 murder of his ex-wife Susan Hamwi and their daughter Shane to avoid alimony and child support payments, leading to Purvis's wrongful arrest, conviction, and nine years of imprisonment for the crimes. After the actual perpetrators confessed in 1992-1993, Purvis was released, and the plaintiffs filed suit asserting negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, exemplary damages, and racketeering violations under RICO and COCCA. On Hamwi's converted motion for summary judgment, the court dismissed the RICO and COCCA claims for failure to establish a pattern of racketeering activity but allowed the remaining claims to proceed, reasoning that Hamwi's alleged active cooperation with authorities against Purvis and other conduct could support liability beyond a mere failure to confess.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a bankruptcy trustee's action against a shipper for alleged undercharges on interstate motor carrier shipments, based on filed tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The defendant moved to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the ICC, arguing that the reasonableness of the rates and interpretation of the tariffs were at issue. The court granted the motion in part, staying the case to allow the defendant an opportunity to seek an ICC ruling on tariff interpretation and rate reasonableness before dismissing the action without prejudice. The reasoning relied on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, under which rate reasonableness determinations are exclusively for the ICC, and on Supreme Court precedent in Reiter v. Cooper permitting such claims to proceed as counterclaims rather than defenses, with no requirement to pay the tariff first.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by Calabrese Foundation, a nonprofit, against its investment advisor Investment Advisors, Inc., for allegedly facilitating unauthorized transfers of funds from a charitable trust account that enabled embezzlement by a board member. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that the action was time-barred, the board member had authority to direct the transfers, and no valid claims existed for breach of fiduciary duty or conversion. The court denied summary judgment in part, permitting the negligence and fiduciary duty claims to proceed after finding genuine issues of material fact on authority and timeliness, but granted it in part by dismissing the conversion claim. The court reasoned that cash transfers do not qualify as conversion because money is not tangible personal property subject to dominion or willful interference that changes its character in the manner alleged.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a bankruptcy trustee seeking to collect undercharges from a shipper for interstate transportation services provided by a now-bankrupt carrier, claiming the shipper paid less than the filed tariff rates. The defendant shipper moved to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the Interstate Commerce Commission, arguing that the reasonableness of the rates and which tariff applies are issues within the ICC's primary jurisdiction. The court granted the stay, reasoning that rate reasonableness is a matter for the ICC under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, such claims can be pursued as counterclaims without requiring prior payment of the tariffs.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a court-appointed receiver for the Alpine Mutual Fund Trust, which operated two series mutual funds (CMAT and NMAT) registered with the SEC, seeking judicial approval to adjust the funds' net asset values (NAV), deny interest on shareholder redemption claims, and prorate receivership expenses through 1992 among all shareholders including those treated as creditors. The court granted the receiver's motion after a hearing, authorizing downward NAV adjustments to reflect the fair market value of nonmarketable municipal leases and other assets as of November 1991, denying interest payments, and requiring expense proration. The reasoning centered on findings that original NAV calculations were materially inaccurate due to overvaluations, that the funds had suspended redemptions amid liquidity issues stemming from management practices, and that expert accounting methodologies supported the proposed adjustments while fairness required sharing costs broadly among affected parties.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a life insurance policy where Jackson National Life Insurance denied benefits to beneficiary Christine Benavides after her husband’s death, citing material misrepresentation of health on the application; the district court had ruled that the policy’s incontestability clause was ambiguous and enforceable in the plaintiff’s favor on summary judgment. After the parties settled on appeal, the Tenth Circuit directed the district court to vacate its prior judgment and dismiss the complaint as moot. The district court declined to vacate, reasoning that the cited precedents such as Munsingwear apply only to mootness arising by happenstance rather than voluntary settlement, and that vacatur in settlement cases would improperly allow parties to erase unfavorable precedent and manipulate the development of case law. The court therefore refused to follow the appellate directive pending a more detailed order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Joanna Hall against police officers and officials after a no-knock search warrant was executed at her home in connection with a drug investigation. Officers broke down her door late at night, and Hall, mistaking them for an intruder, was shot; the search found no marijuana inside but some outside in a garage freezer. Hall alleged violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including unlawful entry and excessive force, plus state tort claims. The court granted summary judgment to the individual officers on the unlawful entry claim, finding they were entitled to immunity because they reasonably relied on the warrant under the fellow officer rule with no evidence of bad faith, and dismissed the state claims due to governmental immunity. It denied summary judgment on the deliberate indifference claim against the city and police chief, allowing that portion to proceed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs Venta, Inc. and ENDCO, motor fuel distributors, suing defendant Frontier Oil and Refining Company for alleged price discrimination under the federal Robinson-Patman Act and Colorado Unfair Practices Act, concerted refusal to deal under the Sherman Act and Colorado antitrust law, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for a more definite statement, arguing that some claims lacked support in the allegations and others were too vague. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, applying the standard that a claim should not be dismissed unless no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief, while noting that the Colorado statute requires geographic price discrimination between areas rather than general price favoritism.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over life insurance benefits following the death of Joseph Curtiss, where his employer RJR Circuits, Inc. and widow Mary Jo Curtiss sought payment under a policy issued by Union Central Life Insurance Company. The insurer denied the claim, citing incomplete health information in the application, and the plaintiffs filed state-law claims for breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy was governed by ERISA, which would preempt the state claims, and also sought to strike the jury demand and claims for certain damages. The court denied the motions, finding that the policy did not qualify as an ERISA plan because the employer lacked a significant administrative role or control over the plan, distinguishing it from cases with ongoing employer involvement. As a result, the state-law claims were not preempted, and the related motions to strike were also denied.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Robert J. Fostvedt sued the United States and the IRS, alleging that an IRS tax auditor improperly disclosed his tax return information by sending inquiry letters to his former employer, banks, and hundreds of customers to obtain records of his income and expenses for the 1986 and 1987 tax years after he refused to cooperate with an audit. He also claimed that an IRS special agent and others made additional unspecified disclosures. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the first claim and dismissed the second claim. The core reasoning was that the letters were authorized under Internal Revenue Code section 6103(k)(6) because they sought information not otherwise reasonably available for determining tax liability, and the second claim failed to state a viable cause of action for unspecified disclosures.

taxes

This case concerned a constitutional challenge by Concrete Works of Colorado to Denver's Ordinance No. 513, which aimed to increase participation by certified minority- and women-owned business enterprises in city-funded public works projects through aspirational participation goals. The court granted Denver's motion for summary judgment, holding that the ordinance was constitutional. The court reasoned that the ordinance responded to a compelling governmental interest supported by extensive statistical, anecdotal, and historical evidence of discrimination in contracting. It further found the measure narrowly tailored because it imposed only nonbinding good-faith effort requirements on all bidders, allowed multiple waivers, set goals flexibly on a project-by-project basis, and did not mandate quotas or preferences based solely on race or gender.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory