Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Michael Catalano Jr. appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Allstate Indemnity Co. on Catalano’s claim for breach of contract.
On appeal, Catalano argued that the district court erred by defining “sudden” too narrowly and ignoring evidence indicating the loss was sudden.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in granting Allstate summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that the loss was sudden.
The 10th Circuit reversed and remanded.
K.A. and C.P. were married and had three daughters. The marriage ended in divorce, and the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services initiated several actions against K.A. regarding her relationships with her children, culminating in the termination of her parental rights and the entry of several contempt judgments against her.
She filed a notice of appeal challenging the termination, but it was denied as untimely by the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court declined review. She also sought to appeal one of her contempt sentences, but again the court held that her appeal was untimely.
This appeal concerns K.A.’s complaint filed against Michelle Barnes, executive director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, in her official capacity; ACDHS; and Michelle Dossey, manager of the ACDHS Division of Child and Adult Protective Services, in her official capacity.
The district court dismissed K.A.’s claims and denied her motion to amend her complaint. She filed a timely appeal. The 10th Circuit agreed with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims in her complaint, and K.A. failed to explain how the jurisdictional deficiencies would be cured by her amended complaint.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
The Woodmore brothers, Early and Calvin Woodmore, operated a drug-trafficking ring throughout eastern Oklahoma, according to the opinion. The brothers proceeded to trial jointly in April 2022 and were both convicted for their role in the enterprise’s methamphetamine distribution enterprise.
In January 2025, the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in the appeal of Calvin Woodmore related to his involvement in the enterprise. This appeal concerns Early Woodmore.
Early Woodmore argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury by delivering an instruction involving the right of attorneys to interview witnesses prior to trial and by failing to provide a definitional instruction for the term “methamphetamine.”
Separately, Early Woodmore argues that the district court’s resolution of an apparent custody dispute between his father and his ex-wife in the midst of trial constituted actual or apparent judicial bias.
The 10th Circuit rejected each of Early Woodmore’s arguments and affirmed.
Double Eagle Alloys appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Ace Alloys and Michael Hooper on all claims.
This litigation arises from Hooper’s possession of digital files containing Double Eagle’s business information.
After a decade-long career at Double Eagle, Hooper jumped ship for competitor Ace Alloys. He also took 2,660 files downloaded from his Double Eagle computer with him.
Double Eagle later discovered the download and sued both Hooper and Ace Alloys, alleging trade secret violations, misappropriation of confidential business information and civil conspiracy. After the parties conducted discovery, they cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Hooper and Ace Alloys on all claims.
On appeal, Double Eagle challenged the district court’s rulings on three fronts. First, Double Eagle asserted that it had identified the alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity to maintain its trade secret claims.
Second, Double Eagle argued that its business information was confidential to sustain its misappropriation claim.
Third, Double Eagle argued that the trade secret and misappropriation claims qualified as underlying torts to support the civil-conspiracy claim.
The 10th Circuit disagreed and affirmed.
This case arose when a police officer shot a pet dog. The parties agree that the shooting implicates the Fourth Amendment.
The disagreement involves whether a jury could reasonably find that the police officer had violated the Fourth Amendment and whether a constitutional violation would have been clearly established.
To resolve these disagreements, the 10th Circuit drew guidance from common sense and case law, which would have created a constitutional violation in the absence of immediate danger.
The district court considered the immediacy of danger and denied summary judgment to the police officer. In reviewing the ruling, the 10th Circuit relied on the district court’s assessment of what the jury could reasonably find.
Under that assessment, the jury could reasonably find no immediate danger, which would render the shooting a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion for summary judgment.