This case involves an application by defense counsel for attorney fees and reimbursement of costs under the Criminal Justice Act following a federal drug conspiracy prosecution. The court determined that the matter qualified as both extended and complex under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, permitting compensation beyond the ordinary statutory maximum, but required that all time be reasonably expended and expenses reasonably incurred. After reviewing the submission, the court disallowed substantial portions of the claimed hours because they reflected the attorney's self-education in criminal practice rather than necessary work, and rejected most costs for failing to show actual out-of-pocket expenditures or adequate justification. The court ultimately awarded $6,675 in fees and $199.43 in expenses.
This case involves a dispute between Jackson County Federal Savings and Loan Association (JCF) and Colorado National Bank (CNB) over their respective priorities in a promissory note and deed of trust securing a construction loan for a residential project in Colorado, after the borrower and lead lender defaulted. JCF sought a declaratory judgment that it owned half the note and was entitled to payment priority based on its participation agreement, along with other claims, while CNB claimed a first security interest under its loan agreement with the lead lender. The court denied JCF's motion for partial summary judgment and granted CNB's motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning focused on the nature of the parties' interests and the applicable law, concluding that UCC Article 9 governs perfection and priority of security interests in the note through possession.
This case arose from a 1981 methane and coal dust explosion in a Colorado mine that killed fifteen miners, leading to wrongful death claims against equipment manufacturers on products liability theories and against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence by an MSHA electrical inspector in directing wiring installation. The court addressed the government's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which asserted that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity barred the claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the United States, reasoning that the inspector's conduct involved discretionary regulatory and enforcement activities whose nature, not the specific acts or any distinction between active and passive negligence, placed them within the exception as clarified by the Supreme Court's Varig Airlines decision.
This case was an antitrust action under the Sherman Act brought by Western Systems, Inc. and Thomas McCasland against Dynatech Corp. and others, alleging injury from the enforcement of a non-compete covenant in the helium sampling services market and related state court litigation. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the alleged injury (attorneys' fees from the state action) was not cognizable under antitrust law, McCasland was a former employee without a qualifying interest, and Western was a dissolved corporation. The pendent state tort claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
This case is a toxic shock wrongful death lawsuit in which Stephen Reighley sued individually and on behalf of his minor children against International Playtex, Inc. for the death of his wife Sally. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the children's claims, arguing lack of standing under Colorado's wrongful death statute, that only the personal representative may bring survival claims, and that children have no independent loss-of-consortium action. The court granted the motion in part, holding that only the surviving spouse as personal representative may pursue survival claims for outrageous conduct and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but denied it as to the wrongful death action because the children have a statutory interest in any recovery and precedent permits their inclusion. The court also denied the motion on the children's independent claim for loss of parental society and companionship, recognizing such a cause of action for minors while imposing joinder and dependency requirements.
The case involved a Michigan attorney who passed the Colorado bar examination but was denied admission solely because he did not meet the state's residency requirement under Colo.R.Civ.P. 201.14(1). The plaintiff brought a federal lawsuit challenging the rule as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while the defendants argued lack of jurisdiction and that the requirement was justified by the state's interest in regulating the legal profession. The court first determined it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because the suit challenged a generally applicable rule rather than an individual admission decision. On the merits, the court concluded that the residency rule impermissibly discriminated against nonresidents by limiting their ability to practice law without a substantial reason, and that less restrictive alternatives existed to ensure professional standards. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, declared the residency requirement unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined its enforcement.