Legal Opinion
Haynes v. City of Gunnison
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided July 1, 2002No. CIV.A. 00-K-1119PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
KANE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before me on Defendants King and Laudick’s Motion for Attorney Fees, filed May 9, 2002. Having carefully considered the motion and responses, the record as relevant and all applicable legal authorities, and being fully advised in the premises, I rule as follows:
Defendants Martin King and Randy Laudick seek an award of attorney fees in their favor and against Plaintiff Richard
H. Haynes and his attorney pursuant to C.R.S. § 24 — 10—110(5)(c). This statute provides:
In any action against a public employee in which…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Frank J. Prochaska, Cross-Appellee v. Francis H. Marcoux, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- American Water Development, Inc. v. City of AlamosaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- State v. Golden's Concrete Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Meier v. McCoyColorado Court of Appeals · 2004
- Clayton v. Dreamstyle Remodeling of Colorado, LLCDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021
- Gibson v. LopezDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2022
- Lockhart v. Van BeekDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2025