Cases

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff-Appellants, Park County Sportsmen’s Ranch, LLP (“PCSR”), Kenneth J. Burke (PCSR’s attorney at trial), and the City of Aurora, appeal from a judgment of the District Court for Water Division 1 dismissing PCSR’s water rights application and awarding attorney fees and costs to objectors *603who su

62 P.3d 1049 (2002) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF AURORA, a Colorado municipal corporation; and Gartrell Investment Company, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. No. 01CA1380. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. September 26, 2002. As Modifi

Appellate Case: 25-1142 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH April 27, 2026

5 F.3d 546NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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. Roland D. HALL, Plaintiff-Appe

Justice MARTINEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court. I. Introduction In this appeal from the District Court for Water Division Number One ("water court"), *404the Well Augmentation Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District ("WAS") challenges certain terms and conditions imposed by the water court in its approval

236 P.3d 1222 (2010) Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City of Aurora in Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Weld Counties CITY OF AURORA, acting by and through ITS UTILITY ENTERPRISE, Applicant-Appellee v. NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, Opposer-Appellant. and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, Opposer-Appellant. Adams County Board of County Commissioners; Peter L. Baurer; Cynthia S. Baure

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA24 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0393 Arapahoe County District Court No. 15CV31613 Honorable Charles M. Pratt, Judge City of Aurora, Colorado, a municipal corporation; and Aurora Urban Renewal Authority, a Colorado urban renewal authority Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marc Scott, in his official capacity as Arapahoe County Assessor, Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Digitally signed by Illinois Official Reports Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this doc

772 P.2d 645 (1988) Thomas JONES and Cleo Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF AURORA, a Municipal Corporation, and its relevant subdivision, commissions, departments and unnamed employees; City Council of the City of Aurora, a governing body; and Linda Capra, Steven A. Bobrick, Frank Weddig, Peggy Kerns, Paul Tauer, Jack B. Everhart, and Elsie A. Lacy, all individually and not in their capacities as Council Member, Defendants-Appellants.<

Chief Justice BENDER delivered the Opinion of the Court. T1 This case involves the redistricting of Colorado's congressional districts following the results of the 2010 census. Redistricting is an incredibly complex and difficult process that is fraught with political ramifications and high emotions. This process is made all the more complicated by the depth and variety of Colorado's local and regional intere

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, No. 08-24-00263-CR § Appellant, Appeal from

EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. In the 2000 Census, 32.6% of the population in the City of Aurora, Illinois, identified itself as Hispanic, but of the City’s residents who are citizens and old enough to vote only 16.3% are Hispanic. Aurora has 10 single-seat wards, only one of which reliably elects Latino candidates to the City Council. Another ward, although about 66% Latino, has twic

489 P.2d 1295 (1971) CITY OF AURORA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. Marcus C. BOGUE, Jr., and Donald E. Peel, Defendants in Error. No. 23370. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. October 26, 1971. Leland M. Coulter, Aurora City Atty., Aurora, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Justice Sutton delivered the opinion of the Court. The case before us requires a determination of the question as to whether an agreement, such as is hereinafter set forth, constitutes a “release” or whether it is a “covenant not to sue.” The issue is important because therein lies the answer as to whether the City of Aurora can be sued in this action. There is no dispute as to the fac

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of a summary judgment in an injunction action. The action was brought by Rhonda Miller-Morrison, William F. McClure, Murlin L. McGown and Robert D. Seibert (collectively referred to as plaintiffs) as “residents of Lawrence County, Missouri and taxpayers in the City of Aurora, Missouri.” Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the city of Aurora, Missouri, its acting mayor, members of its city council and its

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Manuel Ang and Loida Ang appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Butler, J.), entered May 20, 2014, as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against them, to strike their answer, for an order of reference, and to amend the caption.

Mr. Justice Sutton delivered the opinion of the Court. The case before us requires a determination of the question as to whether an agreement, such as is hereinafter set forth, constitutes a “release” or whether it is a “covenant not to sue.” The issue is important because therein lies the answer as to whether the City of Aurora can be sued in this action. There is no dispute as to the fac

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Steven Baritz appeals (1) from a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated August 12, 2014, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated August 12, 2014, as, upon the decision, granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted

383 P.2d 798 (1963) CITY OF AURORA, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold C. POWELL, Pauline M. Powell, Silver States Savings & Loan Association, a Colorado corporation, Defendants in Error. No. 20317. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. July 29, 1963. Bernard V. Berardini, George B. Lee, Aurora, for plaintiff in error. Hayutin & Hayu

AMENDED MEMORANDUM *195AND ORDER1 SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION New York City and forty-two New York counties have brought suit against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and subsidiaries alleging Medicaid fraud in violation of the federal Best Prices Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1