In This Section

  • Damage to Home by Police Officers Does not Constitute a Taking
    November 4, 2019

    On October 29, the City of Greenwood Village won a police liability case in the Tenth Circuit.  The court joined three other circuits and the Court of Federal Claims in holding that damage to private property which occurs in the course of law enforcement activities is not actionable as a “taking” for which the government must pay compensation under the Fifth Amendment. 

  • Monument Case Asks Whether Private Residential Covenants Require “Just Compensation” under Takings Clause
    October 17, 2019

    The Colorado Supreme Court has signaled that it intends to revisit the question of whether municipalities and other condemning authorities must pay just compensation to eliminate private restrictive covenants on property acquired by the municipality. A case deriving from 1956 held that they are not property rights, and therefore not entitled to just compensation. If the Supreme Court does overturn this decision, it will be more difficult and much more expensive to quire property for municipal use in covenant-controlled subdivisions.

  • Does #1-9 v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
    October 15, 2019

    In an unprecedented application of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (“OML”), two separate panels of the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the adoption of an “internal policy” by the staff of CDPHE constituted an open meetings violation under the theory that the policy should have been adopted by a public body instead.This interpretation could easily extend to municipalities because OML contains a parallel provision for “local public bodies.” C.R.S. § 24-6-402 (2)(b). Several months later, a third panel of the Court of Appeals held that the OML only applies to formally constituted bodies such as boards and commissions. Does # 1-9 v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2018 WL 3580688 (Colo. App., July 26, 2018); cert. granted (2019).

     

    CML joined as amicus along with seventeen state agencies in support of CDPHE. If the Supreme Court broadly interprets “state public bodies” as argued by the John Doe Doctors, then an equally broad interpretation of “local public bodies” is likely.