§Why CasetextPricing

Isenbart v. Kit Carson County, Board of County Commissioners et al

REPLY to Response to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

13 Cited authorities

  1. Myers v. Oklahoma County Board of Cty. Comm

    151 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 690 times
    Holding that entry of apartment after officers had spent hours trying to resolve situation peacefully was not reckless and deliberate creation of need to use excessive force

  2. Bristol v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Clear Creek

    312 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002)   Cited 239 times
    Holding that because a "Board lacks the power to control the hiring, termination, or supervision of a Sheriff's employees, or otherwise control the terms and conditions of their employment, there can be no basis upon which a jury could determine that the Board owes a [duty to provide accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act]."

  3. Seegmiller v. Laverkin City

    528 F.3d 762 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that "governmental actions restricting police officers' sexual conduct" of an extramarital affair were reasonable

  4. Stump v. Gates

    777 F. Supp. 808 (D. Colo. 1991)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that because under Colorado law, counties were "bodies politic" with power to sue and be sued, counties were themselves proper defendants, rather than subsidiary departments, such as police department

  5. Tunget v. Board, Cty. Comm., Delta

    992 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 2000)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that the sheriff, not the county or board of commissioners, was liable for injuries resulting from the sheriff's employees' negligence because "[t]he sheriff, not the county or the Board, has the right of control with respect to the [sheriff's] deputies"

  6. Anglin v. City of Aspen, Colo.

    552 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Colo. 2008)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the county was jointly liable with the county sheriff in civil rights action for the misdeeds of sheriffs and their employees when the sheriff set official policy for the county, even though the county and the two sheriffs were separate entities and employees were not county employees

  7. Cortese v. Black

    838 F. Supp. 485 (D. Colo. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    Civ. A. No. 92-B-209. November 23, 1993. Dennis Lee Cortese, pro se. Jeannine S. Haag, George H. Hass, and John N. Lefler, Harden, Schmidt, Hass Haag P.C., Fort Collins, CO, for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BABCOCK, District Judge. Before me is defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Dennis Lee Cortese (Cortese)'s civil rights claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A hearing was held on this motion and it is now fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, defendants'

  8. Kukla v. Village of Antioch

    647 F. Supp. 799 (N.D. Ill. 1986)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "cohabitation and sexual choice fall in the category of rights given intermediate scrutiny in public employee discharge cases" for both freedom of association and the right to privacy

  9. Waldron v. Drury

    Civil Case No. 04-cv-01150-LTB-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 21, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Case No. 04-cv-01150-LTB-BNB. June 21, 2006 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief District Judge This case is before me on a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants James Drury and the Alamosa County Board of Commissioners, seeking judgment against Plaintiffs, Barbara Waldron, Richard Sarro, and Elizabeth Brookhart. [Doc. # 60] Also before me is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants David D. Stong, in his official capacity as Sheriff

  10. Jackson v. Johns

    714 F. Supp. 1126 (D. Colo. 1989)   Cited 11 times
    In Jackson I also concluded that, based on § 30-10-506, the plaintiff-employee served at the pleasure of the sheriff in a non-home rule county, and thus his employment was terminable at the sheriff's will. Jackson, supra, at 1130.

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,959 times   689 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 18-6-501 - [Repealed]

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-6-501   Cited 2 times

    C.R.S. § 18-6-501 Repealed by 2013 Ch. 59,§1, eff. 8/7/2013. L. 71: R&RE, p. 449, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-6-501. L. 2013: Entire section repealed, (HB 13-1166), ch. 59, p. 195, § 1, effective August 7.