Cases

821 P.2d 928 (1991) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Elliot BRACK, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90CA1682. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. November 21, 1991. *929 Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Laurie A. Booras, Asst. At

OPINION STOWERS, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION M & M Constructors submitted a permit application to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to mine a mineral deposit for use as construction rock. DNR denied M & M's permit application because it concluded that the mineral deposit was common variety stone. Under the Common Varieties Act,1 "common varietie

54 P.3d 913 (2001) ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY AND FINANCING, by and through its Executive Director, James RIZZUTO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00CA1517. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. IV. September 13, 2001. Rehearing Denied December 6, 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Thirteenth Amendment Claim and Supporting Memorandum, filed' March 6, 2014 (Doc. 22)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on October 23, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether Defendants Dan Sandoval,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Individual DOH Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Substantive Due Process Claim on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed March 6, 2014 (Doc. 22)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on October 23, 2014. The primary issues are whether Defendants Dan Sandoval, Roger Adams, Joseph Mateju

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Relief and Sanctions Based on Intentional Spoliation of Evidence by Defendant City of Albuquerque, filed on March 18, 2016 (Doc. 179), as well as the parties’ supplemental briefs (Docs. 270, 272). Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Having considered the su

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Evidence, filed August 17, 2018 (Doc. 236)("MIL 1"). The Court held a hearing on September 14, 2018. The primary issue is whether evidence of land use by other than Plaintiff Pueblo of Jemez after 1848 -- the year when the Pueblo Indians can under United States jurisdiction -- is

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay the Order and Restore the Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, filed October 4, 2016 (Doc. 123)(“Motion to Stay MOO”);. (ii) the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief, filed November 2,2016 (Doc. 140)(“Suppl. Brief Motion”); and (ii

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendants Susana Martinez, Jeremiah Ritchie, Jeffrey S. Landers, Salvatore Maniaci, Paulette Becker, Robert M. Doughty III, and Carl E. Londone’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV on the Basis of Qualified Immunity, filed December 4, 2015 (Doc. 60)(“Qualified Immunity Motion”); (ii) Defenda

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians’ Motion and Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion to. Complete and/or Supplement the Administrative Record Lodged by Federal Defendant United States Army Corps of *1139Engineers, filed on March 1, 2017. (

ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, ["]As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.["] 1 Kings 17:1 (King James). New Mexico is languishing in the midst of an unprecedented, prolonged drought. As it stands, the ma

SEYMOUR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is an unusual case, involving as it does an across-the-board ex ante ban on a public employee’s right to speak in his native language while at work. While I join fully in the well reasoned opinion insofar as it reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on Plaintiffs’ discrimination

ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV

ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), filed March 28, 2018 (Doc. 57)("Motion"); (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Jeffrey Wu or in the Alternative Grant Plaintiff Leave to Take Discovery, filed April 23, 2018 (Doc. 61)("Motion to Strike"), an

OPALA, V.C.J. 1 The dispositive issue tendered on cer-tiorari is whether summary relief for the City was erroneously entered. We answer in the affirmative. I THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION Ordinance 917 T2 On 6 December 1999 the City of Seminole (City) enacted Ordinance No. 917, whose terms annexed certain territory to its corporate limits. The territo

877 P.2d 321 (1994) In the Matter of the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE, SUBMISSION CLAUSE, AND SUMMARY ADOPTED APRIL 6, 1994, BY THE TITLE BOARD PERTAINING TO A PROPOSED INITIATIVE ON WATER RIGHTS. Richard D. MACRAVEY, Ralph Adkins, Buford F. Rice, Rodney F. Kuharich, Douglas Kemper, and Fred E. Anderson, Petitioners, v. Jerry SWINGLE and Richard G. Hamilton, Respondents, and Title Board; and Merilyn Handley, Stephen ErkenBrack, and Rebecca Lennaha

OPINION MEROW, Judge. In this Rails-to-Trails takings case, Plaintiff, the Chevy Chase Land Company (“CCLC” or “the land company”), moved for summary judgment against Defendant, the United States of America and Intervenor-defendant, Montgomery County, Maryland. Both Defendants have tendered cross-motions for summary judgment against Plaintiff, CCLC. The Columbia Country Club (“the Club

ACCEPTED 13-14-00725-cv THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 4/2/2015 10

RAWLINGS, Justice. ■ By class action in equity plaintiffs challenge validity of chapter 181, Acts of the Sixty-Third General Assembly, permitting issuance of self-liquidating bonds, by defendant State Board of Regents, to facilitate academic structural improvements at the three state universities, and for injunc-tive relief. Trial court held adverse to plaintiffs and they appeal. We affirm. The cited Act