C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton

5 Citing cases

  1. Hardman v. Roosevelt City

    Case No. 2:18-cv-00785-DBP (D. Utah Jun. 24, 2019)

    In order to establish a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, Mr. Hardman must identify either a fundamental liberty interest or show that the interrogation "shocks the conscience." C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton, 2014 WL 2597165, at *9 (D. Colo. June 10, 2014). As an initial matter, Mr. Hardman does not identify any fundamental liberty interest at play.

  2. Interstate Med. Licensure Compact Comm'n v. Bowling

    Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02942-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Jun. 23, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Ms. Bowling alleges that the implied “abruptness” of her departure made her appear “reckless and untrustworthy, ” [#11 at ¶ 41], because as the individual in “total control over operations and technology, ” [id. at ¶ 34], the IMLCC would face “serious hardships” in her absence [id. at 24]. Thus, construing the Counterclaim in a light most favorable to Ms. Bowling, I cannot conclude that Mr. Smith's statements were incapable of a defamatory meaning or effect as a matter of law. See C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton, No. 13-CV-01053-REB-CBS, 2014 WL 2597165, at *14-15 (D. Colo. June 10, 2014) (denying motion to dismiss Colorado defamation claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)).

  3. Hershey v. Turner

    Case No. CIV-19-344-SPS (E.D. Okla. Apr. 21, 2020)

    Id., quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-640 (1987). "In determining whether a right is clearly established, the relevant inquiry is 'whether it would be clear to a [reasonable government official] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.'" C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton, 2014 WL 2597165, at *7 (D. Colo. June 10, 2014), quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). In this case, it is clear that a government's restriction on content in a traditional or designated public forum must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly drawn to achieve that end.

  4. Stewart v. Okla. Dep't of Corr.

    Case No. CIV-14-167-SPS (E.D. Okla. Mar. 25, 2016)

    Stearns, 615 F.3d at 1282 (quoting Murrell v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 186 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10th Cir. 1999)). "In determining whether a right is clearly established, the relevant inquiry is 'whether it would be clear to a [reasonable government official] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.'" C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton, 2014 WL 2597165, at *7 (D. Colo. June 10, 2014) (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202). In this Circuit, "[t]he right to be free from sexual harassment is clearly established under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

  5. Brokers' Choice of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc.

    138 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (D. Colo. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding "the comparison did not ... show the aired statements would have left viewers with a false impression of the gist of Clark's seminars. Instead, Dateline ' s portrayal of what occurred at the seminar was, in fact, 'substantially true' "

    2001) Specifically, a motion to dismiss can be granted on the basis that the challenged publication was substantially true. Fry , 2013 COA, ¶ 24, ––– P.3d –––– ; see also Barnett, 36 P.3d at 147 (affirming trial court's dismissal of a defamation claim where challenged statement's substantial truth was clear from plaintiff's complaint); C.G. v. City of Fort Lupton , No. 13–CV–01053–REB–CBS, 2014 WL 2597165, at *14–15 (D.Colo. June 10, 2014) (dismissing defamation claim on a 12(b)(6) motion where substantial truth was clear from the face of the complaint). B. APPLICATION