Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell's litigators have successfully represented clients in a wide range of cases in state and federal courts and administrative forums at both trial and appellate levels. Many of these matters have been high-profile cases raising complex and precedent-setting issues of environmental, land use, transportation and constitutional law. Our dedication to principled, zealous advocacy on behalf of our clients is seen in the diverse range of cases we have won, including cases under the U.S. Constitution, Federal Aviation Act, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, other transportation and aviation statutes, the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, RCRA, FLPMA, and state and local land use and environmental ordinances and laws.

A Strategic Approach to Litigation

The Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell approach to litigation focuses on achieving our clients' strategic and policy objectives. For our clients, litigation is often not just an end in itself, but a strategic tool to achieve broader goals. The strategic role of litigation is especially important for our many public sector clients whose policy objectives are often not reducible to dollars and cents. For these clients, litigation is often a tool as part of a larger strategy to achieve a policy goal in which non-litigation tools (including legislative and political tools) may be equally important. Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell's ability to combine strategic insight, legal creativity and zealous advocacy produces lasting legal victories for our clients.

Trial Court Litigation

The Firm's lawyers have extensive experience in trial courts at the state and federal levels involving the full range of environmental, aviation, transportation, land use and constitutional issues that our practice encompasses. Our trial practice includes all aspect of trial and pre-trial work, including discovery, motions practice, summary judgment and the selection and preparation of expert witnesses. Our trial experience includes both jury and non-jury trials. Firm lawyers also have the perspective of having served as expert witnesses in environmental litigation.

Because governmental entities are customarily among the parties in land use, environmental or transportation litigation, firm lawyers have developed the necessary expertise in the procedural and Constitutional issues that are inherent in public law practice, including scope of authority, separation of powers, immunity, justiciability, standing, preemption and takings. The firm has also developed expertise in recovery of attorney's fees for its clients under fee-shifting statutes in a wide variety of cases.

Although our litigators are based in Denver, Washington and New York, their advocacy skills are evident in their success in courts and administrative forums in localities across the country.

Appellate Litigation

Our lawyers have wide experience before appellate courts at all levels, from the United States Supreme Court to state and federal courts of appeal. Because many of our cases arise from the decisions of administrative and other governmental forums, we are fully versed in the principles of administrative law, standing, and deference that often dominate appellate litigation. Whether called in as special appellate counsel or to handle the appeal of a case we handled below, we bring to bear a thorough knowledge of the record, deep understanding of the applicable legal principles and skilled advocacy to present the strongest possible case for our clients.

Administrative Litigation

In addition to traditional litigation before courts of law, firm lawyers have extensive experience litigating cases before administrative tribunals. This experience includes Part 16 hearings before the F.A.A. (including handling two of the three contested Part 16 evidentiary hearings), and a number of other aviation, environmental and land use hearings before a wide variety of state and local administrative agencies. Because administrative legislation is often the first step in a sequence of administrative and judicial proceedings, firm lawyers understand the importance of creating a record that will ultimately prevail on appeal, and apply the same advocacy skills and legal knowledge to administrative litigation as they do to court litigation. Our lawyers also understand the importance of avoiding litigation over administrative decisions and assist clients in litigation-avoidance strategies (including especially the creation of a thorough administrative record) to minimize the likelihood of litigation and to enhance probability of success if litigation is filed.



Land Use and Election Litigation

Federal Cases

Vacation Village v. Clark County, 244 Fed.Appx. 785 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 2956 (2008)

Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin, Minn., 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir. 1993) (filed amicus brief on behalf of county seeking to regulate landfill by imposing composting requirement)

City of Cleveland, Ohio v. City of Brook Park, Ohio, 893 F.Supp. 742 (N.D. Ohio 1995) (represented City in defense of zoning regulations controlling airport expansion)

State Cases

Board of Comm'rs of Pitkin County v. Timroth, 87 P.3d 102 (Colo. 2004) (represented local Land Trust and other amici curiae in defense of County open space parcels created on abandoned mining claims)

County of Fairfax v. Fleet Industrial Park, Ltd., 410 S.E.2d 669 (Va. 1991) (represented landowners in challenge to County-wide downzoning ordinance)

Colo. Dep't of Transp. v. Board of Comm'rs of Douglas County, 2008 WL 1903523 (Colo. App. 2008) (represent County in defense of land use regulations)

Olson v. Denver, No. 03CA1896 (Colo. App. 2004) (challenge to Denver Election Commission approval of measure to repeal local land use ordinance, and injunction against placement of measure on the ballot)

City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., 113 Cal.App.4th 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (represented City in prosecuting a challenge to citizen-sponsored initiative on airport development); City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., 72 Cal.App. 4th 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (represented City in defense of authority under state law to review acquisition of property for airport expansion); Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of Burbank, 64 Cal.App. 4th 1217 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (represented City in defense of transient parking tax)

City of Des Moines v. Puget Sound Regional Council, 988 P.2d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (represented coalition of local governments in challenge to land use approval for new runway project)

City of Cleveland v. City of Brook Park, 659 N.E.2d 342 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (represented City in defense of property acquisition adjacent to airport)

City of Irving v. Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd., 894 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. App. 1995) (represented municipalities in challenge to zoning applicable to airports)

City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of Eagle, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo. App. 1994), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 564 (1995) (represented citizens' group in successful defense of County's denial of land use permit against regulatory takings and preemption claims)

Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. City of Irving, Tex., 854 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. App. 1993) (represented municipalities in challenge to zoning for airport project)

City of Golden v. Jefferson County, Case No. 03CV3045 (Colo. Dist. Ct. 2004) (obtained injunction against construction of HDTV tower and remand to County Commission)


Aviation and Transportation Litigation

Federal Cases

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Mich., 510 U.S. 355 (1994) (successful defense, with local counsel, of compensatory ratemaking methodology, under the Commerce Clause standards applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret applicable federal statutes in the absence of DOT guidance)

Clark County, Nev. v. F.A.A., 522 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (successful challenge to federal agency approval of siting of towers near end of proposed new airport runway)

City of Naples Airport Auth. v. F.A.A., 409 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (challenge to F.A.A. revocation of grant eligibility of airport proprietor for imposing aircraft noise restriction)

Friends of Marolt Park v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 382 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 2004) (challenge under Section 4(f) to use of community open space and historical area for highway realignment)

Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. F.A.A., 154 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (represented Las Vegas Airport System in challenge to F.A.A. Grand Canyon Air Tour overflight rule)

State of Kan. v. United States, 16 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (successful defense of Wright Amendment against a variety of constitutional challenges)

Global Int'l Airways Corp. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 727 F.2d 246, 731 F.2d 127 (2nd Cir. 1984) (successfully defended airport against Commerce Clause and federal preemption challenge to airport cumulative noise restriction)

British Airways Bd. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 558 F.2d 75, 564 F.2d 1002 (2nd Cir. 1977) (defended airport ban on supersonic flights against Commerce Clause and preemption challenges)

Tutor v. City of Hailey, Idaho, 2004 WL 344437 (D. Idaho 2004) (represented airport in challenge to runway weight restriction)

Nat'l Bus. Aviation Ass'n v. City of Naples Airport Auth., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (represented airport in challenge to constitutionality of restriction on aircraft operations)

Salem Transp. Company of N.J., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 611 F. Supp. 254 (D.C.N.Y. 1985) (defended airport permit fee on ground transportation provider against Commerce Clause and Anti-Head Tax claims)

State Cases

Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Airports Commission (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2007) (represented City of Minneapolis in challenge under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act to sound insulation program at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; secured settlement providing for sound insulation for 10,000 homes)

Continental Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Auth., 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (represented airport in defense of restriction on Stage 2 jet aircraft)

City of Naples Airport Auth. v. Jet 1 Center Inc., Case No. 02-5010-CA-HDH (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2003) (obtained injunction against fueling by FBO for violations of airport regulations)


First Amendment, Open Meetings and Public Records Litigation

Federal Cases

Int'l Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 112 S. Ct. 2701 (1992) (successfully represented airport in First Amendment defense of ban on non-commercial solicitation)

Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 2000) (represented ACLU as amicus in successfully obtaining dismissal of abuse of process, false imprisonment and other claims on First Amendment grounds)

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Berger, 894 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1990) (successfully defended airport against First Amendment challenge to ban on newspaper vending machines).

Brashich v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 791 F.2d 224 (2nd Cir. 1980) (successfully defended airport against First Amendment challenge to airport chapel).

ETSI Pipeline Project v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 1489 (D.D.C. 1987) (represented public interest group in challenge to refusal to release membership records)

Taxpayers for the Animas River v. Bureau of Reclamation, C.A. No. 96-B-616 (D. Colo.) (represented citizens' organizations and individuals seeking notice of and access to inter-governmental contract negotiation proceedings under Reclamation Reform Act)

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C.A. No. 94-N-2889 (D. Colo.) (secured agreement giving citizens notice of and access to government meetings under the Federal Advisory Committee Act)

Four Corners Action Coalition v. Dep't of Interior, C.A. No. 92-Z-2106 (D. Colo.) (obtained summary judgment ordering agency to release withheld records under the Freedom of Information Act)

State Cases

Krystkowiak v. W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc., 90 P.3d 859 (Colo. 2004) (represented SLAPP Resource Center and League of Women Voters as amici curiae in breach of contract SLAPP)

Board of County Comm'rs, Costilla County v. Costilla County Conservancy Dist., 88 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2004) (represented Conservancy District in challenge to County's failure to provide public notice of meeting under Colorado's Open Meetings Law)

Rocky Mountain Asphalt v. Weiland et al., 00-CA-1505 (Colo. App. 2001) (obtained reversal vacating injunction against public participation entered by a district court magistrate who held evidentiary hearing without the consent of the parties) (unpublished opinion)

Garcia v. Groubert, Case No. 98-CV-83 (Las Animas County Dist. Ct.) (represented individual citizens and local group sued for, inter alia, slander for giving notice of Clean Water Act violations)


Endangered Species, Wetlands and Other Environmental Litigation

Federal Cases

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724 (10th Cir. 1997) (challenge to scope of agency's conservation and recovery duties under Endangered Species Act)

Catron County Bd. Of Comm'rs, N.M. v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996) (represented amicus in support of government's critical habitat designation)

Holy Cross Wilderness Defense Fund v. Madigan, 960 F.2d 1515 (10th Cir. 1992) (challenge to wetlands permitting process)

River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 2007 Westlaw 4200677 (D. Ariz. 2007), affirmed, 574. F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2009) (successful defense of agency's allocation of permits and management prescriptions for Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park)

Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner, 23 ELR 20402, 36 Env't Cases 1409 (D. Colo. 1992) (established citizens' standing to enforce habitat protection provisions of Endangered Species Act)

Sierra Club v. Baker, 1990 WL 116845 (D.D.C. 1990) (established duty of a public international organization to comply with domestic environmental laws, overcoming various immunity claims)

State Cases

Colo. Dep't of Transp. v Board of County Comm'rs of Douglas County, 2008 WL 1903523 (Colo. App. 2008) (successful defense of County's promulgation of regulations under Colorado Areas and Activities of State Interest Act)


CERCLA Litigation

Greene v. Citigroup, 215 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2000) (represented interstate compact board in obtaining dismissal of action seeking declaration of compact violation)

Brown Group v. Hathaway et al., C.A. No. 01-AJ-0917 (D. Colo.) (represented PRP in CERCLA cost recovery, contribution and common law tort action)

Colorado School of Mines v. AK Steel Corp. et al., 2001 WL 34041780 (D. Colo. 2001) (represented third-party defendant/PRP in CERCLA cost recovery action)

U.S. v. IBM Corp., C.A. No. 01-B-1017 (D. Colo. 2001) (represented PRP in CERCLA cost recovery action)

Colorado School of Mines v. Teck Corp., C.A. No. 99-M-1310 (D. Colo.) (represented assignor of claimant in CERCLA cost recovery and common law tort action)

Mathews v. Dow Chemical et al., 947 F. Supp. 1517 (D. Colo. 1996) (represented PRP in CERCLA cost recovery, contribution and common law tort action)


NEPA and Environmental Impact Review Litigation

Federal Cases

City of Bridgeton v. F.A.A., 212 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2000) (represented local government in challenge to EIS for new runways through city parks)

City of Los Angeles v. F.A.A., 138 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1998) (represented City in challenge to EIS for new airport terminal)

City of Grapevine, Tex. v. Dep't of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (represented municipality in challenge to EIS for airport expansion)

Colo. Environmental Coalition v. Lujan, 803 F. Supp. 364, 1992 WL 231020, 22 ELR 21,542 (D. Colo. 1992) (represented citizens' organization in successful challenge to Bureau of Land Management's wilderness designation process in three western states)

Sierra Club v. Hodel, 675 F. Supp. 594 (D. Utah 1987), aff'd and rev'd in part, 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988), on remand, 737 F. Supp. 629 (D. Utah 1990), aff'd, 949 F.2d 362 (10th Cir. 1991) (successful challenge to process allowing construction on right-of-way through wilderness candidate areas on federal public lands)

CSX Corporation, et al. - - Control and Operating Leases/Agreements - - Conrail, Inc., et al., S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 33388, 3 S.T.B. 196 , 1998 WL 456510 (Service Date Jul. 23, 1998) (representation of City of Cleveland, Ohio, in securing mitigation of noise and other adverse environmental impacts due to rerouting of trains following proposed merger proceeding)


Clean Air Act Litigation

Federal Cases

Com. of Va. v. E.P.A., 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (represented motor vehicle manufacturing trade association in successful challenge to EPA regulations regarding motor vehicle emissions standards)

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Busey, 79 F.3d 1250 (1st Cir. 1996) (represented local government in Clean Air Act challenge to military base conversion)

U.S. v. Williams Field Services, C.A. No. 02B0199 (D. Colo. 2002) represented defendant in negotiation of Consent Decree relating to alleged Clean Air Act violations at a gas processing plant within a Native American reservation)

U.S. v. Conoco Inc., C.A. No. H-01-4430 (represented buyer of oil refinery obtaining amendment to pre-existing New Source Review Consent Decree)

U.S. v. General Motors, No. 95CV02215 (D.D.C. 1995) (represented defendant in negotiation of Consent Decree regarding pollution controls for several automobile and truck models)

State Cases

South Coast Air Quality Management District v. BP West Coast Products, LLP, No. BC291876 (Cal. Super. 2003) (represented AQMD in action against oil company for repeated violations of state air quality laws)


Water and Hydropower Litigation

Federal Cases

Sierra Club v. Yeutter, 911 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990) (complex, precedent-setting litigation establishing existence and scope of federal reserved water rights in wilderness areas)

Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. F.E.R.C., 876 F.2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (challenge to hydropower license under Endangered Species Act)

Sierra Club v. Lyng, 661 F. Supp. 1490 (D. Colo. 1987), (dismissed as unripe sub nom); Sierra Club v. Block, 615 F. Supp. 44 (D. Colo. 1985); Sierra Club v. Block, 622 F. Supp. 842 (D. Colo. 1985)

State Cases

Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colorado Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995) (established special statutory fiduciary duty affecting the Board's proposed relinquishment of the public's interest in instream flow water rights)

City of Aurora v. Bell, 799 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1990) (challenge to scope and exercise of water rights in federal wilderness area)


Attorney's Fee Lititgation

Federal Cases

Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming award of attorney's fees in favor of prevailing defendant under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988)

Sierra Club v. El Paso Properties, Inc., 2008 WL 879319 (D. Colo. 2008) (represented citizens' group in successfully opposing defendant's motion for attorneys' fees in a Clean Water Act action)


Other Representative Cases

Federal Cases

Osage Nation v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (2006); Osage Nation v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 322 (2005) (successful representation of Osage Nation in breach of trust suit for money damages due to the United States' failure to collect full oil royalties due the Osage Nation)

State Cases

Intermountain Power Agency v. Union Pacific R. Co., 961 P.2d 320 (Utah 1998) (represented power plant in dispute with rail carrier over rates and service quality issues, from arbitration through appeals to the Utah Supreme Court)


Administrative Litigation

41 North 73 West, Inc. DBA Avitat Westchester and Jet Systems v. Westchester County, N.Y. F.A.A. Docket No. 16-07-13 (Jun. 12, 2008) (Director's Determination) (successfully obtained dismissal of complaint alleging unjust economic discrimination)

Maryland Transit Administration -- Petition for Declaratory Order, S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 34975, 2007 WL 2936134 (Service Date Oct. 9, 2007), aff'd on reconsideration, S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 34975, 2008 WL 4281987 (Service Date Sept.19, 2008) (confirmed that state agency's previous acquisition of ownership of rail corridor that remained subject to freight operating easement did not trigger regulatory review requirements and that the state agency did not become a common carrier providing transportation subject to the S.T.B.'s jurisdiction)

Tri-State Brick and Stone of N.Y., Inc., et al. -- Petition for Declaratory Order, S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 34824, 2006 WL 2329702 (Service Date Aug. 11, 2006), petition to reopen denied, S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 34824, 2007 WL 4973942 (Service Date Dec. 11, 2007) (successful representation of New York City in attempt by shipper to claim benefits of federal preemption even though it is not a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the S.T.B.)

The New York City Economic Development Corp. - - Petition for Declaratory Order, S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 34429, Fed. Carr. Cas. P 37151 (Service Date Jul. 15, 2004) (successful representation of City agency in action seeking determination that federal regulatory scheme preempts state environmental and zoning regulations)

In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the Naples Airport Auth., Naples, Fla., F.A.A. Docket No. 16-01-15, 2003 WL 21876635 (Jun. 30, 2003) (Initial Decision) (defended Airport Authority in enforcement action by the F.A.A.; obtained dismissal of several claims before F.A.A.-appointed hearing officer after contested trial-like hearing). Final F.A.A. decision vacated in City of Naples Airport Auth. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 409 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

CSX Corporation, et al. - - Control and Operating Leases/Agreements - - Conrail, Inc., et al., S.T.B. Finance Docket No. 33388, 3 S.T.B. 196, 1998 WL 456510 (Service Date Jul. 23, 1998) (successful representation of New York City, sought and secured direct competitive freight rail alternative on line serving east side of Hudson River where merger proponents had sought to have only one carrier serving that segment of the market)


Other Part 16 Matters

In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep't of Transp. Case No. L2006060064 (Feb. 28, 2008); In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep't of Transp. Case No. L-2001110412 (Nov. 20, 2002); In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep't of Transp. Case No. L-9701269 (1998) (Successfully represented City of Burbank in successive contested hearings under the California's noise variance process and obtained conditions requiring additional noise mitigation and abatement measures)


Supreme Court Litigation

McCarran International Airport and Clark County v. Sisolak, 137 P.3d 1110 (Nev. 2006) (represented defendant in Supreme Court certiorari petition after unfavorable ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court), cert. denied 127 S.Ct. 1260 (2007)

Vacation Village v. Clark County, 244 Fed. Appx. 785 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 2956 (2008) (represented defendant in Supreme Court certiorari petition after unfavorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (drafted Supreme Court briefs in landmark Title VIII sexual harassment case)

Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584 (1993) (represented litigating non-state participant in original jurisdiction case over allocation of water in the North Platte River, conducted by a Special Master appointed by the Court in 1986)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 112 S. Ct. 2701 (1992) (successfully represented airport in First Amendment defense of ban on non-commercial solicitation).

Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 817 F.2d 222 (2nd Cir. 1987) (successfully defended airport against federal preemption challenge to 1500 mile perimeter rule. This case permitted airport and proprietor to regulate airline routes and services when there was a legitimate reason for such restriction).

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 305 F.Supp. 93 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) (defended airport minimum flight fee on general aviation against federal preemption and grant assurance claims).


Expert Witness Testimony

Federal Cases

In Re Asarco LLC et al., 2008 WL 4533733 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (attorney's fees)

Colorado School of Mines v. Horizon Potash, No. 99-F-1863 (D. Colo.) (attorney's fees)

Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines Inc., 2006 WL 2331082 (D. Colo. 2006) (attorney's fees)

Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 255 F.Supp.2d 1177 (D. Colo. 2002) (attorney's fees)

State Cases

Lyon v. Amoco Production Co., 923 P.2d 350 (Colo. App. 1996) (on remand) (attorney's fees)

Chaffee Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co., Case NO. 00-CV-7265 (Denver Dist. Ct.) (attorney's fees)

Lowrie v. Johnson, Case No. 03-CV-3637 (Arapahoe County Dist. Ct.) (attorney's fees)

In Re Marriage of Scibelli, Case No. 05 DR 2747 (Jefferson County Dist. Ct.) (impact of environmental contamination on property value)


\