1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 958 F.2d
  5. 958 F.2d 332 (1992)
 

WORKMAN v. JORDAN

Nos. 91-1067, 91-1132, 91-1151.

958 F.2d 332 (1992)

Robert WORKMAN; Judy Workman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sheriff Ed JORDAN, in both his individual capacity and official capacities; Captain Michael Miller, in his official capacity; David Worden, in his individual and official capacities; Weld County By and Through the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, Defendants, and Undersheriff Rick Dill, in both his individual and official capacities, Defendant-Appellant. Robert WORKMAN; Judy Workman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Sheriff Ed JORDAN, in both his individual capacity and official capacities; David Worden, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, and Undersheriff Rick Dill, in both his individual and official capacities; Captain Michael Miller, in his official capacity; Weld County By and Through the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, Defendants. Sheriff Ed JORDAN; Undersheriff Rick Dill; David Worden, Petitioners, v. Richard P. MATSCH, District Judge, Respondent, and Robert Workman and Judy Workman, Real Parties in Interest.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 16, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Marc F. Colin and Richard A. Stubbs, of Bruno, Bruno & Colin, P.C., Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Cathy H. Greer, Malcolm S. Mead, and Catherine A.G. Sparkman, of Hall & Evans, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant Undersheriff Rick Dill.

Christina M. Habas, of Watson Nathan & Bremer, P.C., and Robert M. Liechty and Theodore S. Halaby, of Halaby & McCrea, Denver, Colorado, for defendants-appellants Sheriff Ed Jordan and David Worden.

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

Defendants Ed Jordan, Rick Dill, and David Worden appeal from orders postponing until trial a decision on their motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on grounds of qualified immunity. Defendants request that if we conclude we lack jurisdiction over their appeals, we grant mandamus compelling the district court to decide their motions before trial. We conclude that we have jurisdiction of the appeals, that mandamus does not lie, and that the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases