Kerr et al v. Hickenlooper
| Andy Kerr, Norma V. Anderson, Jane M. Barnes, Elaine Gantz Berman, Alexander E. Bracken, William K. Bregar, Bob Briggs, Bruce W. Broderius, Trudy B. Brown, John C. Buechner, Stephen A. Burkholder, Richard L. Byyny, Lois Court, Theresa L. Crater, Robin Crossan, Richard E. Ferdinandsen, Stephanie Garcia, Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, Nancy Jackson, William G. Kaufman, Claire Levy, Margaret Markert, Megan J. Masten, Monisha Merchant, Michael Merrifield, Marcella L. Morrison, John P. Morse, Pat Noonan, Ben Pearlman, Wallace Pulliam, Frank Weddig, Paul Weissmann, Joseph W. White and Kristi Hargrove |
| John Hickenlooper |
| 1:2011cv01350 |
| May 23, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Jefferson |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| William J. Martinez |
| Constitutionality of State Statutes |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
120
SUPREME COURT Order, 118 Supreme Court Letter re Writ of Certiorari. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commn, 576 U. S. ___ (2015) on 06/30/2015. (cthom, )
|
|
Filing
95
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to 94 Order on Motion for Certificate of Appealability, the Scheduling Conference set for 09/27/12 (pursuant to 83 Order on Motion to Continue) is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a Status Report within ten (10)days of a ruling by the Circuit Court. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 09/21/12. (alvsl)
|
|
Filing
78
ORDER Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Substitute Complaint ECF No. 18 , properly construed as moving to dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; De fendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim. Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Defendants Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs other four claims for relief. Those four c laims will be allowed to proceed past the pleading stage in this action; Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ECF No. 74 , is GRANTED; The Clerk of Court shall FIL E as a separate docket entry the Second Amended Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, currently filed as an attachment at ECF No. 74 . The Second Amended Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief will hereinafter be the operative complaint in this action; and The Courts Order staying disclosures and discovery in this action ECF No. 29 is VACATED and said stay is hereby LIFTED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/30/2012.(ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This action presents a constitutional and statutory challenge to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) ballot initiative, approved by Colorado voters in 1992. The Court held oral argument on the Moti on on February 15, 2012. The Motion to Dismiss argues, inter alia, that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue this action. While both parties briefed the standing issue, both parties appear to have paid more attention in their briefs to the issue of the applicability, vel non, of the political question doctrine to the claims asserted in this case. The same is true for the parties arguments at the oral argument on the Motion. Further, neither amicus brief addressed the standing issue. The Cou rt concludes that further briefing on the standing issue could assist the Court in arriving at the correct resolution of the standing questions presented. Therefore, the Court orders the parties, and invites amici, to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of Plaintiffs standing to pursue the claims asserted in this action. The parties (and amici, if they so choose) shall file these supplemental briefs on or before March 16, 2012. No responses or replies will be permitted. No more than one amicus brief supporting each sides positions shall be filed. The parties briefs shall not exceed 25 pages each, inclusive of the caption and text, but exclusive of the attorney signature blocks and the certificate of service. Amicus briefs, if any, shall not exceed 20 pages each, similarly measured. All supplemental briefs shall be filed in accordance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1., by Judge William J. Martinez on 2/17/2012. (ervsl, )
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER: denying 43 Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Order Relating to Disclosures Under Rule 26(a)(1)(A), by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 11/16/11.(bnbcd, )
|
|
Filing
49
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland: Motion Hearing held on 11/15/2011. Taking under advisement 43 Plaintiffs motion to amend order relating to disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(A). (FTR: G.Mattei) (bnbcd, )
|
|
Filing
35
MINUTE ORDER granting 31 Motion for Leave Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/18/2011.(erv2, )
|
|
Filing
11
MINUTE ORDER : granting 9 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Substitute Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept the Substituted Complaint for filing, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/16/11.(bnbcd, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
