Local government orders mandating residents wear masks have become a political flash point in Colorado’s ongoing coronavirus pandemic response.

The Weld County GOP chairman has filed a complaint with the local district attorney and the Secretary of State’s Office accusing an aide to Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Buck and three others of election fraud and corruption.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction and sentence for possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The defendant argued that the trial court should have suppressed evidence obtained during a traffic stop because he had revoked his consent to the search. He also argued that he should not have been deemed a career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Third Circuit rejected his contentions, in a decision in which each judge filed a concurring opinion, including the author of the majority opinion.

(United States Third Circuit) - Remanded for reconsideration of whether former employees of an asbestos mining and processing operation in Montana could bring a negligence suit against the now-bankrupt company's insurers. The insurers sought a declaratory judgment that the former employees, who now suffer from asbestos disease, were barred from proceeding with their lawsuit because the bankruptcy court had already created a trust to compensate persons injured by the company's asbestos. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity from claims arising out of a wild high-speed chase that ended with the motorist being shot between 16 and 18 times. The apparently unarmed motorist and his wife filed this suit alleging that the officers violated the motorist's Fourth Amendment rights. On interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the Third Circuit held that the officers' conduct was within the bounds of the Supreme Court's relevant decisions regarding the use of lethal force, and the officers were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxi operators' constitutional challenge to an agreement that the City of Newark entered into with the ride-sharing service Uber. The taxi operators claimed that the City had violated their constitutional and state law rights by subjecting Uber and similar ride-sharing services to less onerous regulations than those imposed on taxi and limousine operators. Unpersuaded by these arguments, the Third Circuit held that the potentially unfair situation created by the City's decision could not be remedied through the plaintiffs' constitutional and state law claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a disabled tenant's lawsuit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. The tenant, who needs ready access to her rolling walker, brought suit when the building managers refused to allow her to leave it in the building's lobby. Unpersuaded by her arguments, the Third Circuit concluded she did not plausibly plead that her preferred accommodation of leaving the walker in the lobby was necessary, given that she was offered four other ways to store and access her walker.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a consumer who purchased baby powder without being informed that it increased the risk of ovarian cancer (as she alleged it did) had no standing to pursue claims for economic injury. The plaintiff argued that she and other consumers would not have purchased the baby powder in the first place had they been properly informed about its alleged risks. Emphasizing that she was asserting only economic harm, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of her class-action complaint, explaining that the product had functioned for her as expected.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a federal prisoner could proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with a lawsuit alleging that prison employees violated his constitutional rights. The district court had denied the prisoner's IFP request, applying the so-called three strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Reversing, the Third Circuit held that the prisoner had not accrued three strikes. The panel used its own precedent to evaluate whether his prior lawsuits were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, rather than that of the circuit from which the potential strikes emanated.

(United States Third Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder, contended that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him incorrectly that he could not be convicted of murder, which led the defendant to reject a plea deal. Agreeing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a motorist who was kicked in the face during his arrest, breaking his eye socket, could pursue conspiracy claims against the four police officers at the scene, all of whom denied kicking him or seeing who did. The motorist did not know which of the officers had kicked him. The Third Circuit held that this doomed his excessive-force claim. However, the panel allowed him to continue litigating his claim of an unconstitutional after-the-fact conspiracy to cover up misconduct, reversing summary judgment in relevant part.  

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a fee petition in its entirety when the amount requested was outrageously excessive. The Third Circuit formally endorsed the view that where a fee-shifting statute provides a court discretion to award attorney fees, such discretion includes the ability to deny a fee request altogether when, under the circumstances, the amount requested is outrageously excessive. The panel thus affirmed the denial of a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff in an insurance bad faith case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a Chapter 7 debtor was not allowed to amend a bankruptcy schedule to reflect a post-petition increase in the value of property that was the subject of a homestead exemption under Washington law. Affirmed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Rejected a mootness argument in a dispute between an insolvent borrower and the holder of a mortgage note. Overruled In re River West Plaza-Chicago LLC, 664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011), holding that 11 U.S.C. section 363(m) does not make any dispute moot or prevent a bankruptcy court from deciding what shall be done with the proceeds of a sale or lease.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a real estate business's Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Held that the plan was lawfully proposed even though a lessee illegally grew marijuana. Rejected a challenge brought by the United States Trustee.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that bankruptcy debtors could not appeal the denial of their motion for sanctions, because they had not filed a petition for permission to appeal, as required under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006(g). Criticized two circuit precedents that appeared to recognize exceptions to this procedural requirement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A bankruptcy judge did not commit clear error in finding that a trustee’s distributions to a third party while the company was insolvent were gratuitous, and there was no reason to overturn the imposition of discovery sanctions against the trustee.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed, vacated, and remanded. Holding that a creditor can establish that its expenses are attributable to the actions of the bankruptcy estate through evidence of either a direct request from the debtor-in-possession or other inducement via the knowing and voluntary post-petition acceptance of desired goods or services.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. A debtor's property cannot be excluded from the bankruptcy estate in cases involving contingent future interests.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Subject matter jurisdiction is determined when the federal court's jurisdiction is first invoked, so although subsequent changes eliminated the basis for jurisdiction the propriety at the time of filing supported the continuation of the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. The panel held that the FDIC’s appeal was timely filed within 60 days of entry of the district court’s judgment because, even though acting solely as a receiver, the FDIC was a United States agency under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B)(ii).

If the season does restart, what do you think would be the ideal situation? Straight into the playoffs? Time is running out.

It’ll take more than a probing, eight-inch nasal swab to keep Justin Gaethje from taking his shot at a UFC title belt. Even an interim one.

Rockies all-star shortstop Trevor Story pays close attention to the reports about baseball's possible return in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

With concerns about COVID-19 in mind, the U.S. Forest Service is thinking about swapping public transportation for limited vehicle entry.

With the start of the Major League Baseball season postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, we here at The Denver Post took a look at how the Rockies would fare in MLB The Show 20 on PlayStation 4. We will have a story for every game that had been scheduled until real-life baseball returns. Here’s a look at the virtual Rockies’ preseason preview. Entering Friday's game, the Rockies were 24-12.

Are the two offensive tackles who will start for the Broncos in 2021 on the current roster? It seems increasingly unlikely.

Minor-league baseball -- the dreams it inspires, the smaller cities that embrace it and the talent it develops for big-league teams -- is undergoing seismic changes.

Colorado lawmakers are hopeful that they'll be back at the Capitol as early as May, but they caution that it will depend on the advice of experts and whether the state's state-at-home order is still in place.

The state's budget writers are now planning for a shortfall that's measured in billions rather than millions -- taking the possibility of new spending off the table and threatening existing programs.

Democratic state lawmakers say hate and bigotry are on the rise during the COVID-19 pandemic and they’re asking Coloradans to join them in condemning it.

Sponsors are abandoning efforts to create a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado through legislation, announcing Friday they will instead support a ballot initiative already in the works. The proposed family leave bill faced rough waters from the beginning, but the coronavirus pandemic proved to be an insurmountable obstacle, the Democratic would-be sponsors […]

Colorado lawmakers won't vote this year on a controversial bill to create a hybrid public-option health insurance program, bill sponsors announced Monday.

Here’s how to pack for a week-long ski trip for a family of four and check only one bag.

The National Western Stock Show's Sheep Lead judges sheep and their human escorts in a contest that stresses the chic side of the industry.

Baker neighborhood fashion boutique Fancy Tiger Clothing will drop the fancy and the tiger from its name next month when it rebrands as FM. The name change will be accompanied by the addition of a permanent DJ booth, more house-made clothing and expanded services in the shop at 55 Broadway in Denver.

Joel Swanson's "In Other Words" in Republic Plaza serves as a marketing tool, and that's fine -- though it means the art stays on message.

A Colorado costume shop is creating beautiful pieces in some big-time Broadway shows.

This is not your mama's mani.

As Drag For All Ages reaches its anniversary, it and its queens are thriving.

But the sudden spike in demand has led to material shortages andcost increases.

(US 3rd Circuit) - No. 19-2217

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Plaintiff was shot several times during an encounter with the police. The police were responding to an emergency call that plaintiff had committed burglary and assault. Plaintiff sued alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the police conduct violated Maryland law. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants holding that the police were enjoyed qualified immunity and no constitutional violations occurred. The appellate court held that the police violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights, but that the police had qualified immunity. Because the trial court did not address the violation of the Fourth Amendment rights under Maryland law the case is remanded.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this defamation action, plaintiff appealed from a judgment against her. Defendant, a television news agency, ran a news story about a county in Virginia hiring a plaintiff, a convicted felon and implying that she lied on her job application. Although plaintiff had a prior conviction she disclosed that on her application and was hired anyway. Plaintiff sued the news organization. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was a public figure and as such she would need to prove actual malice. The trial court granted defendants motion for directed verdict, concluding that plaintiff had failed to show actual malice. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the judgment.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed: In a plea deal, plaintiff pled guilty to possession of a firearm, but reserved the right to appeal the order denying his motion to suppress the weapon. Plaintiff argued that his motion was denied in error because the police lacked reasonable suspicion for seizure. The appellate court held that based on the totality of the circumstances and a tip from citizen informants the search and seizure was lawful. The motion to suppress was properly denied.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a habeas petition in a case where a murderer sentenced to death asked that the jury be instructed that he would have been ineligible for parole if sentenced to life in prison. In affirming the denial of his request, the appeals court noted that he only had a right to such a jury instruction if the prosecutor had argued that he would be a danger to society if released from prison, but the prosecutor here had not argued future dangerousness.