You are here

Counties Served

10-CV-179 Wilber v. Thurmer

10-CV-179 Wilber v. Thurmer

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that his state court conviction and sentence were imposed in violation of the Constitution.  Petitioner argued in his petition that his constitutional rights were violated when the state trial court ordered him to be shackled to a wheelchair in a way that was visible to the jury during closing arguments, among other reasons.  The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment -- August 2020

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Rules have proposed amendments to the following rules and have asked that they be circulated to the bench, bar, and public for comment.

Appellate Rule: 25

Bankruptcy Rules: Restyled Rules Parts I and II; Rules 1007, 1020, 2009, 2012, 2015, 3002, 3010, 3011, 3014, 3016, 3017.1, 3017.2 (new), 3018, 3019, 5005, 7004, and 8023; and Official Forms 101, 122B, 201, 309E-1, 309E-2, 309F-1, 309F-2, 314, 315, and 425A

COVID-19 Health Questionnaire

Your participation in jury service is greatly appreciated and extremely important for the court to continue essential judicial proceedings. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 and reduce the potential risk of exposure, you are required to complete this questionnaire. Your completion of this questionnaire is vital to help us take precautionary measures to minimize risk to you and all who enter the courthouse. Please complete the questionnaire within 24 to 48 hours prior to coming to the courthouse and bring it with you to check-in.

 

• A fever • New or worsening cough • Shortness of breath or trouble breathing • New loss of ability to taste or smell • Nausea, vomiting or diarrhea
(Note: Information from the CDC regarding groups at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 can be found at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html)

Answers to questions above are true to the best of my knowledge. Entering your name in the signature line below qualifies as your signature.

19-CV-1210 Jason Morris, et al v. Aurora Network Plan, et al

19-CV-1210 Jason Morris, et al v. Aurora Network Plan, et al

Anti-assignment clause of ERISA plan could not be read to allow assignment of benefits to health care providers but bar assignment of the right to sue to enforce right to benefits, because right to sue to enforce benefits under a plan arises from statute and attaches wherever a party has a valid entitlement to plan benefits.

Pages