Legal Opinion · Dissent
Reno v. Marks
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided January 16, 2014No. Court of Appeals No. 12CA2613Published
1Dissent
JUDGE DUNN
dissenting.
1 25 The majority concludes that a district court has no discretion to determine who the prevailing applicant is under the fee-shifting provision in the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), section 24-72-201 et. seq., C.R.S. 2018. Because I disagree with this conclusion, I respectfully dissent.
126 Parties ordinarily must bear the expense of their own attorney fees. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). Under this so-called "American Rule," attorney fees are not awarded to a prevailing party absent explicit…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Vaughan v. McMinnSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
- Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
- Archer v. Farmer Bros. Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.