• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 9-10 of 10 results

No. 29 [11112638] Notice of deficient appendix received from Archdiocese of Denver, Daniel Sheley, ...

Document St. Mary Catholic, et al v. Roy, et al, 24-1267, No. 29 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024)
Dear Counsel: The appendix received in the subject case does not comply with the form requirements of 10th Cir. R. 30.1(D) (note that all form requirements also apply to supplemental appendices).
Please file a corrected appendix within three days of the date of this notice.
Do not file paper copies of your appendix and brief until the court has received the corrected electronic appendix and issued notice it is compliant.
Appellate Case: 24-1267 Document: 29 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 2 The time to file a response brief will run from the date of service of the appendix.
Sincerely, Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 27 [11112526] Appellant/Petitioner's brief filed by Archdiocese of Denver, Daniel Sheley, Lisa ...

Document St. Mary Catholic, et al v. Roy, et al, 24-1267, No. 27 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024)
And, although many of the Archdiocese’s preschools have been licensed for decades, both sides agree that none of these pre- schools “has any history of a complaint from an LGBTQ family or other person alleging LGBTQ-based ...
Id. Because the Department denied the Archdiocese an accommodation, none of the Archdiocese’s preschools are able to participate in UPK Colo- rado.
Even the district court agreed: “Plaintiffs are correct that none of the expert testimony presented by Defendants spoke directly to whether Plaintiff Preschools’ participation in the UPK Program would increase or decrease the ability of ...
Yet, despite conceding that “Plain- tiff Preschools engage in substantially the same activity as in Dale,” 2.App.0531, the district court attempted to distinguish Dale in four ways; none are persuasive.
Meanwhile, the court didn’t cite a single case supporting its novel “separate legal entities” the- ory, and Plaintiffs know of none.
Indeed, while the district court (incor- rectly) ruled against Plaintiffs on strict scrutiny, none of its reasoning turned on any preschool-specific factor.
Nonetheless, the evidence presented on this issue is not satisfactory—Defendants offer their representation to the Court without evidence, and Defendants cite less than persuasive testimony in response.
Plaintiffs assert: “[E]specially with regard to disability, religion, and income—the permitted categorical exceptions directly contradict the [statutory] nondiscrimination requirement.” Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 33 n.2. While none of the ...
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets
<< 1 2

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search