Hotaling v. Hickenlooper
Colorado Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge J. JONES.
Plaintiff, Mark Hotaling, claims that certain contracts entered into between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the Department) and two entities that provide family planning services violate article V, section 50 of the Colorado Constitution, which provides that public funds may not be used, directly or indirectly, to pay for abortions. The district court dismissed Mr. Hotaling's complaint, concluding that because the funds at issue are entirely federal funds, Mr. Hotaling lacks Colorado taxpayer standing to challenge the contracts We agree with…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wimberly v. EttenbergSupreme Court of Colorado · 1977
- Estate of Stevenson Ex Rel. Talovich v. Hollywood Bar & Cafe, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
- City of Greenwood Village v. for the Proposed City of CentennialSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
- Ainscough v. OwensSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Foundation v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and FinancingColorado Court of Appeals · 2020
- Bernardo, Arceo, Diaz, Sanchez, Pinaula, Balbin Anciano, Charfauros, Rama v. Gov GuamSuperior Court of Guam · 2021
- Colorado Medical Society v. HickenlooperColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
- Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. HickenlooperColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
- Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2025