Additional Trials and Settlements Victories

Africa House v. Tabor Center. A federal jury awarded $2.85 million to our clients, an African woman and her African arts and imports store, against a shopping center that had unsuccessfully attempted to evict them from the center. The award was based upon a finding of intentional race discrimination. The award was modified on appeal, and the case settled for a confidential amount.

Jane Doe and Children v. National Big Box Retail – We settled our client’s claims of racial profiling against a national retail company that had falsely accused her and her children of shoplifting items for which they had actually paid. The store summoned the police to go to her home, humiliating her and her family in front of her neighbors. With co-counsel, we confidentially settled her claims for $700,000.

Sally Doe and Children v. National Fast Food Restaurant – We settled our clients’ claims of racial profiling against a national fast food chain that had kicked them out of the store and humiliated them in front of other customers. With co-counsel, we confidentially settled their claims for $320,000.

Free the Nipple – Trial, Appeal, injunction, fees. We represented women and civil rights organizations to challenge the discriminatory law in Ft. Collins that banned female, but not male, toplessness in public. Our challenge to the law that began provided that “women are prohibited from” was successful at the trial court, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and upheld the injunction prohibiting enforcement of the illegal law. Ft. Collins was required to remove the ban from its books. In addition, Ft. Collins had to pay our attorney fees of over $200,000. Free the Nipple – Fort Collins et. al. v. City of Fort Collins, 916 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2019).

Ayers v. University of Wyoming – Controversial speaker William Ayers was invited by a student group to speak on campus at the University of Wyoming. Controversy ensued, with some groups objecting to his presence and to his speaking at the University given his controversial background. The President of the University ordered that the speech be cancelled because of fears that the controversy threatened campus security. We sued the University based upon the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution, requesting that the speech proceed as scheduled. The Wyoming federal judge agreed with us that the ban on the speech violated the First Amendment and reversed the University President’s decision. The speech was given. The judge also awarded $50,000 in attorney fees against the University.

Covid 19 Litigation against Jails and Prisons. During the worldwide coronavirus pandemic. Tens of thousands of prisoners in jails and prisons in Colorado were vulnerable to undue exposure due to the jail and prison officials’ failure to appropriately respond to the dangers associated with the virus. Our lawyers joined the teams seeking federal and state court intervention to institute life-saving safety measures on behalf of the prisoners. These legal actions resulted in massive changes in policy and practice to protect the health and safety of these vulnerable individuals.

In Independence Institute v. Buescher, 718 F.Supp.2d 1257 (2010), we challenged under the First Amendment to the Constitution the constitutionality of a Colorado law that made it more difficult, if not impossible, for certain election ballot initiative proponents to get their initiative or referendum on the ballot to be put to popular vote. This gave rise to serious First Amendment concerns related to citizens’ ability to freely participate in democracy, including elections. The federal judge determined that the law violated the First Amendment, and issued a preliminary injunction in our clients’ favor, which prohibited the enforcement of the law. Additionally, the State paid $1 million in attorneys’ fees for our hard-fought win in this major, precedent-setting case.

Peck v. McCann, 43 F.4th 1116 (10th Cir. Aug. 9, 2022). In a decision with potentially wide-ranging impact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that a Colorado statute that requires records of reports of child abuse to be kept confidential violated the First Amendment. The court reasoned that a key provision of the law, which punishes disclosure of information and data that does not identify the child, family, or informant, isn’t narrowly tailored to promote the state’s compelling interest in preventing disclosure of identifying information concerning child abuse. Given the rationales underlying this ruling, similar confidentiality laws in other states could well also violate the First Amendment and now may be in jeopardy.

Guantanamo Bay Detainees. Since 2007 we have represented five innocent men illegally detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison as part of our country’s response to the events of 9/11. These men had nothing to do with 9/11, but were imprisoned and tortured in violation of international and domestic law. Four of these men have been released and settled in third countries, while one still remains imprisoned at the prison despite having been cleared for release and resettlement by all five US agencies responsible for making determinations based on national security factors. We continue to fight for his release and for the closure of the Guantanamo prison, which has left an indelible stain on our country’s commitment to and reputation for due process, democracy, and human rights.

Gay Marriage and LGBTQ+ Equality. We have long been on the front lines of fighting for equal rights for members of the LGBTQ+ community, including the right of everyone to love and marry anyone they wish to. Our legal team was among several that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on same sex marriage in 2014, obtaining a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the unconstitutional law.

The lawyers of Killmer Lane, LLP have a long and unwavering record of fighting against the death penalty, in courts, in legislatures, and using public advocacy and activism in the court of public opinion.

Colorado v. Dante Owens

Colorado v. Edward Montour

Texas v. Juan Contreras

Texas v. Baby Ray Bennett