The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals released two opinions with Colorado ties. Read the summary for each case or follow the link to the full opinion.
Vance v. Aldrich, Nos. 25-1326, 25-1328 & 25-1329 (D.C. Nos. 1:24-CV-03190-WJM-MDB & 1:24-CV-3193-WJM-MDB) (D. Colo.) In November 2022, Anderson Aldrich carried an AR-15-style rifle and a handgun into Club Q, an LGBTQIA+ nightclub in Colorado Springs. Aldrich then opened fire, murdering five people and injuring twenty-five others. Plaintiffs are survivors of the shooting and the families of three people Aldrich murdered. They sued the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, the El Paso County Sheriff, and individuals and entities associated with Club Q.
Against the County Defendants, Plaintiffs brought substantive due process claims through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under a state-created-danger theory of liability, as well as related wrongful-death claims. Plaintiffs alleged that the County Defendants’ policies prohibited law enforcement from seeking emergency protection orders, which would have kept dangerous individuals like Aldrich from accessing firearms. In other words, they asserted that these defendants denied them a state-granted protection, which increased their vulnerability to private violence.
Against the Club Q Defendants, Plaintiffs brought state-law claims under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA), as well as related negligence and wrongful-death claims. Plaintiffs alleged that the Club Q Defendants contributed to their injuries by not taking adequate security and safety measures to protect patrons.
The County Defendants and the Club Q Defendants separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted the County Defendants’ motion in full and the Club Q Defendants’ in part. Plaintiffs and the Club Q Defendants both appealed.
Senior Judge William J. Martinez and Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell
Panel: PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and EID, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge Phillips.)
Decision: We AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part. Read the opinion.
United States v. Crow, No. 24-1377 (D.C. No. 1:22-CR-00015-RM-1) (D. Colo.) This matter is before the court sua sponte. In order to correct a clerical error in the name of a witness mentioned in the sixth line on page 11 of the court’s May 19, 2026 opinion, the Clerk of Court shall reissue the attached corrected version of the opinion effective nunc pro tunc to the date the original opinion was filed.
This case concerns a criminal defendant’s right to pretrial notice of the government’s rebuttal evidence. We ask: Is that right triggered when a governmental witness responds to evidence that the defendant himself hadn’t disclosed? We answer no.
Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore
Panel: HOLMES, Chief Judge, BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. (Entered for the Court by Judge Bacharach. Correction entered by Clerk of Court Christopher Wolpert.)
Decision: AFFIRMED. Read the opinion.