United States v. Stine
In August 2015, Mikeal Stine was convicted by a jury on two counts of threatening a U.S. Magistrate Judge and one count of threatening an assistant U.S. Attorney.
Stine filed a motion in November 2016 claiming that his counsel was ineffective in four respects: failing to assert defendant’s speedy-trial right, failing to retain a handwriting expert to examine the threatening letters or to call favorable witnesses identified by defendant, failing to cross-examine all the government’s witnesses and failing to allow the defendant to testify.
The district court denied relief on the merits of all claims and also denied his request for appointment of counsel and a private investigator.
Stine sought a certificate of appealability to appeal the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado of his motion under 28 U.S. Code Section 2255. Because no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s disposition of Stine’s claims, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Van Steen v. Life Insurance Company N.A.
Carl Van Steen is employed as a systems integration business analyst at Lockheed Martin Corporation and is a participant in the Lockheed Martin Group Benefits Plan, which is administered by Life Insurance Company of North America, or LINA. LINA also funds Lockheed’s long-term disability policy. ERISA governs the plan and policy.
In October 2011, Van Steen was physically assaulted during an altercation while walking his dog. The assault resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury that impacted Van Steen’s cognitive abilities.
A cross-appeal arose out of Life Insurance Company of North America’s termination of Carl Van Steen’s long-term disability benefits under Lockheed Martin’s ERISA Plan.
Life Insurance Company of North America appealed the district court’s finding that its decision to terminate Van Steen’s benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Van Steen, in turn, appealed the district court’s denial of his attorney’s fees request.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on both issues.
Black v. Larimer County
On April 17, 2014, Larimer County, Colorado, hired Melissa Black to perform seasonal work as a restroom custodian in its parks department. She alleged that during her employment she was sexually harassed and intimidated by a co-worker. On June 15, 2014, she quit due to the alleged harassment.
Black complained to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After investigating the matter, it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a [Title VII] violation” but issued Black a right to sue letter.
On March 21, 2017, the judge granted the county’s motion to dismiss based on Black’s failure to appear for her deposition as ordered. He denied as moot Black’s motion to join additional claims and parties and for extension of the scheduling deadlines.
Judgment was entered the same day. On June 14, 2017, he amended the judgment to clarify the dismissal was without prejudice.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and denied the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
McDonnell v. City and County of Denver
Nazli McDonnell and Eric Verlo sought a preliminary injunction against the City and County of Denver, Antonio Lopez and Virginia Quinones arguing policies and regulations governing protests and demonstrations at Denver International Airport violate their First and 14th Amendment rights. The district court granted the injunction in part, concluding McDonnell and Verlo made the necessary showing with respect to their claim that the challenged regulations are unreasonable because they do not contain a formal process for expediting permit applications in exigent circumstances.
The district court also enjoined the defendants from enforcing certain regulations governing the location of permitted protests and picketing restrictions, including the size of signage.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 of the U.S. code § 1292(a)(1), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of the preliminary injunction.
City of Lakewood v. Armstrong
In 2011, the defendants, Joyce Armstrong and the Mary Armstrong Trust, bought a property with a permanent public easement on it and occupied it. At some point, the Armstrongs attempted to obstruct the easement’s use by locking a gate at one entrance to it.
In 2015, the City of Lakewood filed an action for quiet title, declaratory judgment, prescriptive easement, trespass, reformation of the commissioners deed, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
The Armstrongs answered and counterclaimed for quiet title, asserting that the easement was invalid. Lakewood requested partial summary judgment on its claims.
The Armstrongs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in their favor on all of Lakewood’s claims.
Before trial, the district court granted Lakewood’s summary judgment motion for declaratory judgment, quiet title and reformation.
The court found that the easement was a valid express easement appurtenant over the Armstrongs’ property for use by the public and Lakewood.
The court denied the Armstrongs’ motion for summary judgment and entered a final order and decree.
The Armstrongs appealed the district court’s summary judgment for the City of Lakewood, declaring that a deed conveying an express easement over the Armstrongs’ property was a valid and enforceable easement appurtenant. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
In the interest of S.L. and A.L., children, and concerning L.L. and K.L.
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, K.L. (mother) and L.L. (father) appealed from the judgment terminating their parent-child legal relationships with S.L. and A.L. (the children).
Among the issues raised on appeal was an issue of first impression, namely whether a parent is entitled to have his or her counsel present when a trial court conducts an in camera interview of a child in a dependency and neglect proceeding.
The Court of Appeals concluded that whether to grant such a request is within a trial court’s sound discretion, based upon a number of case-specific considerations.
Based on the resolution of that issue and other claims raised on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision.