Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. City Council
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Erickson
The plaintiffs, dog owners and related canine and humane associations (dog owners), filed a complaint in the Denver District Court against the defendant, City and County of Denver (city), seeking both a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the “Pit Bulls Prohibited” ordinance, Denver, Colo., Rev.Mun.Code § 8-55 (1989), and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement. The dog owners also requested damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) and attorneys’ fees and costs. This appeal is taken from the district court’s order which held that section 8-55, as construed by the court, was…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Dias v. City and County of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- People v. OlguinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Weigel v. MarylandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
- Robertson v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.