All practice areas<\/h1>\n<\/div>Our attorneys are skilled in handling the following personal injury cases:<\/b><\/p>\n\n- Catastrophic injury<\/li>\n
- Truck accident<\/li>\n
- Oil field accident<\/li>\n
- Wrongful death<\/li>\n
- Accident at work<\/li>\n
- Slip and fall accident<\/li>\n
- Construction accident<\/li>\n
- Premises liability<\/li>\n
- Product liability<\/li>\n
- Battery explosion<\/li>\n
- Accident in a swimming pool<\/li>\n
- Amputation<\/li>\n
- Back injury<\/li>\n
- Birth injury<\/li>\n
- Brain damage<\/li>\n
- Broken bones<\/li>\n
- Burn injury<\/li>\n
- Childhood injury<\/li>\n
- Dog bite\/animal attack<\/li>\n
- Cranial injury<\/li>\n
- Laceration injury<\/li>\n
- Neck injury<\/li>\n
- Orthopedic injury<\/li>\n
- Paraplegia\/quadriplegia injury<\/li>\n
- Spinal cord injury<\/li>\n
- Whiplash injury<\/li>\n
- Sexual Abuse<\/li>\n
- Sexual Assault<\/li>\n
- Poisoned food<\/li>\n
- Civil Rights<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The following types of cases are summarized, in detaille, elsewhere on lastimadura.com: work accidents, construction accidents, oil field accidents, truck accidents, etc.<\/p>\n
An introduction to the other types of cases would require several pages of text. Without <\/span>However, here is a brief introduction to one type of case: civil rights cases. <\/span>cases.<\/span><\/p>\nCivil law cases<\/b>
\n<\/span><\/p>\nCivil law cases are those that involve the violation of the rights of individuals, i.e., citizens. One of the most common ways in which these types of violations occur is through excessive use of force by the police, or discrimination against persons with physical disabilities, or on the basis of race or national origin.<\/p>\n
Excessive violence by police<\/b><\/p>\n
The police are authorized to use force, e.g., to stop people who have been arrested. suspects. When excessive force is used, the victim may be injured. <\/span>and a violation of their civil rights.<\/span><\/p>\nExcessive use of force occurs in a situation in which government officials who have the power to use force to protect themselves or <\/span> third parties abuse this power. This can happen in the context of <\/span>handling of prisoners, suspects, arrests, among others. This type of violation is <\/span>known as police brutality.<\/span><\/p>\nWe need to know the different types of use of force to understand when it becomes excessive use of force.<\/span><\/p>\n\n- Physical presence:<\/strong> as its name indicates, it refers to the sole use of the
\npresence of an officer as a method of control.<\/li>\n- Verbal force:<\/strong> Refers to when verbal statements or
\ndirect orders are used.<\/li>\n- Empty hand control:<\/strong> physical strength is used to grab, hold or
\ndodge punches and kicks.<\/li>\n- Low lethality method:<\/strong> when a weapon such as police batons
\n, chemical sprays, police dogs or tasers are used.<\/li>\n- Lethal force:<\/strong> use of firearms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Under the constitution the use of any of the 5 types of force must stop immediately when the situation is under control or when the suspect is properly contained. At this point, force may not continue to be used against suspects who are not a threat.<\/p>\n
Now that we understand the basic workings of the use of force, what can a victim do if he or she has received excessive use of force? The first action is to file a civil rights complaint, or depending on the severity of the case, file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Once these steps are completed, they will decide whether to investigate the case.<\/p>\n
During the investigation, all factors of the event are taken into account to determine whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force.<\/p>\n
\n- Lethal force:<\/strong> use of firearms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Under the constitution the use of any of the 5 types of force must stop immediately when the situation is under control or when the suspect is in control. <\/span> correctly contained. At this point, you can no longer use the <\/span>force against non-threatening suspects.<\/span><\/p>\nNow that we understand the basic workings of the use of force, what can <\/span>What should a victim do if he or she has received excessive use of force? The first action is <\/span>file a civil rights complaint, or, depending on the seriousness of the case, file a civil rights <\/span>a complaint to the Department of Justice. Once these steps have been completed, they <\/span>will decide whether to investigate the case. <\/span><\/p>\nDuring the investigation, all factors of the event are taken into account to determine whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force. <\/span>whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force.<\/span><\/p>\nAnother category of civil rights claims is known as “Section 1983 claims.”<\/b><\/p>\n
Section 1983 claims are lawsuits that are brought under a federal statute — 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 — that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials for civil rights violations.<\/p>\n
What can be claimed under Section 1983?<\/p>\n
– Violations of freedom of expression, religion, due process, equal protection and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by police….<\/p>\n
– Violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights<\/p>\n
– Violations of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and federal laws.<\/p>\n
“[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.’ ” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also, Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org, 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979).<\/p>\n
Who can be sued under Section 1983? <\/b>State or local government officials and individuals acting “under color of state law”.<\/p>\n
State remedy for civil rights violations.<\/p>\n
The state of Colorado has a statute that is very similar to 1983, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The law provides victims of police misconduct with a civil remedy. Importantly, the statute also explicitly prohibits the defense of qualified immunity. CRS \u00a7 13-21-131<\/p>\n
It is believed that Colorado state courts will apply Tenth Circuit precedent (10th Cir.– the federal judicial circuit in which Colorado and Wyoming are located) interpreting 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 in interpreting C.R.S. \u00a7 13-21-131. The Tenth Circuit has long held that, in an illegal search case brought under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, an officer’s assertion that his actions did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights because his conduct was permitted by an exception to the general warrant requirement is an affirmative defense that the officer must prove.) Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (In \u00a7 1983 case, “The officers bear the burden of establishing that [the asserted warrant exception existed] justifying the warrantless entry.”)(” Officers have the burden of establishing that [the asserted warrant exception existed] justifying the warrantless entry.”). Dalcour v. City of Lakewood, 492 F. App’x 924, 931 (10th Cir. 2012).<\/p>\n
No immunity for cop who shot puppy in Colorado and Wyoming<\/b><\/p>\n
Dog owners Wendy Love and Jay Hamm were delivering firewood for their business on the evening of June 29, 2019, when they pulled into the parking lot of a commercial building. It was Saturday and there were no other people around, so Love and Hamm pulled their dogs (Bubba and Herkhimer) out of the truck to stretch.<\/p>\n
A police officer, Grashorn, arrived on the scene. After parking several feet away from Love and Hamm, the video showed Bubba, a 16-year-old dog, running toward the officer. The officer immediately pointed his gun at Bubba, and Love and Hamm asked Bubba to turn back. Although Bubba turned away, Herkimer, a 14-month-old puppy who had been resting in the couple’s van, jumped out at the commotion. Herkimer ran toward Grashorn and the officer shot him in the head and torso.<\/p>\n
Love and Hamm sued Grashorn, alleging an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In turn, Grashorn asserted qualified immunity and asked the judge to resolve the case in his favor without trial.<\/p>\n
The Judge, Hon. Raymond Moore, concluded that a jury could reach different conclusions about the reasonableness of Grashorn’s conduct and refused to end the case outright.<\/p>\n
“Although a reasonable jury could decide that Herkimer [the dog] posed a danger to the defendant [police officer], it could also decide that it did not pose an immediate danger. Because there is sufficient evidence of the latter, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs [The dog’s owners].” Order, Nov. 15, 2023. Civil Action 21-cv-02502-RM-KLM.<\/p>\n
Grashorn appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the Order was legally defective.<\/p>\n
At the hearing with the Tenth Circuit, one of the judges noted the following:<\/p>\n
“Dogs that are clearly someone’s pets, often running loose, will pounce on people. What doesn’t seem to happen, more commonly, is that those dogs are shot and killed” from police. Federal appellate judge, Richard Federico. Love v. Grasshorn, 23-1397 (rehearing, Jan. 22, 2025), ca10.uscourts.gov\/sites\/ca10\/files\/oralarguments\/23-1397.mp3. <\/span><\/p>\nEmployment discrimination based on disability<\/h2>\n
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The EEOC has provided the definition of disability discrimination in the workplace:<\/strong><\/p>\nDisability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity covered by Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (which protects private, state, and local employees) or the Rehabilitation Act (which protects federal employees) treats a qualified employee or applicant unfavorably because of a disability. Disability laws prohibit discrimination as it applies to any aspect of employment, including hiring, disciplinary discharge, pay, job assignments, promotions or promotions, objective discharge, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.<\/p>\n
Disability Discrimination and Employment Decisions | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)<\/u><\/a><\/p>\nMr. Gigax won a lawsuit against an employer who had wrongfully terminated an employee with a disability.<\/p>\n
Dismissed Driver Wins Lawsuit Garbage Company Case of Discrimination Against Physically Disabled Worker. Civil Rights <\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>![](\"https:\/\/lastimadura.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image10.png\" "\\"image10\\"")
<\/span><\/div>![](\"https:\/\/lastimadura.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/image11.png\" "\\"image11\\"")
<\/span><\/div>If you are looking for a legal consultation, we can help you find the best possible solution. We have a team with a lot of experience and professionalism for the best resolution of your case. Call us at (303)628-2367<\/u><\/a>or, in Wyoming, call us at (307)772-1822<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\nGet a Free Case Analysis<\/b><\/p>\n\nCall today for a free consultation in Spanish!<\/p>\n
Our attorneys are skilled in handling the following personal injury cases:<\/b><\/p>\n The following types of cases are summarized, in detaille, elsewhere on lastimadura.com: work accidents, construction accidents, oil field accidents, truck accidents, etc.<\/p>\n An introduction to the other types of cases would require several pages of text. Without <\/span>However, here is a brief introduction to one type of case: civil rights cases. <\/span>cases.<\/span><\/p>\n Civil law cases<\/b> Civil law cases are those that involve the violation of the rights of individuals, i.e., citizens. One of the most common ways in which these types of violations occur is through excessive use of force by the police, or discrimination against persons with physical disabilities, or on the basis of race or national origin.<\/p>\n Excessive violence by police<\/b><\/p>\n The police are authorized to use force, e.g., to stop people who have been arrested. suspects. When excessive force is used, the victim may be injured. <\/span>and a violation of their civil rights.<\/span><\/p>\n Excessive use of force occurs in a situation in which government officials who have the power to use force to protect themselves or <\/span> third parties abuse this power. This can happen in the context of <\/span>handling of prisoners, suspects, arrests, among others. This type of violation is <\/span>known as police brutality.<\/span><\/p>\n We need to know the different types of use of force to understand when it becomes excessive use of force.<\/span><\/p>\n Under the constitution the use of any of the 5 types of force must stop immediately when the situation is under control or when the suspect is properly contained. At this point, force may not continue to be used against suspects who are not a threat.<\/p>\n Now that we understand the basic workings of the use of force, what can a victim do if he or she has received excessive use of force? The first action is to file a civil rights complaint, or depending on the severity of the case, file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Once these steps are completed, they will decide whether to investigate the case.<\/p>\n During the investigation, all factors of the event are taken into account to determine whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force.<\/p>\n Under the constitution the use of any of the 5 types of force must stop immediately when the situation is under control or when the suspect is in control. <\/span> correctly contained. At this point, you can no longer use the <\/span>force against non-threatening suspects.<\/span><\/p>\n Now that we understand the basic workings of the use of force, what can <\/span>What should a victim do if he or she has received excessive use of force? The first action is <\/span>file a civil rights complaint, or, depending on the seriousness of the case, file a civil rights <\/span>a complaint to the Department of Justice. Once these steps have been completed, they <\/span>will decide whether to investigate the case. <\/span><\/p>\n During the investigation, all factors of the event are taken into account to determine whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force. <\/span>whether there was police brutality or excessive use of force.<\/span><\/p>\n Another category of civil rights claims is known as “Section 1983 claims.”<\/b><\/p>\n Section 1983 claims are lawsuits that are brought under a federal statute — 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 — that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials for civil rights violations.<\/p>\n What can be claimed under Section 1983?<\/p>\n – Violations of freedom of expression, religion, due process, equal protection and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by police….<\/p>\n – Violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights<\/p>\n – Violations of rights, privileges or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution and federal laws.<\/p>\n “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.’ ” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also, Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org, 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979).<\/p>\n Who can be sued under Section 1983? <\/b>State or local government officials and individuals acting “under color of state law”.<\/p>\n State remedy for civil rights violations.<\/p>\n The state of Colorado has a statute that is very similar to 1983, the Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The law provides victims of police misconduct with a civil remedy. Importantly, the statute also explicitly prohibits the defense of qualified immunity. CRS \u00a7 13-21-131<\/p>\n It is believed that Colorado state courts will apply Tenth Circuit precedent (10th Cir.– the federal judicial circuit in which Colorado and Wyoming are located) interpreting 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 in interpreting C.R.S. \u00a7 13-21-131. The Tenth Circuit has long held that, in an illegal search case brought under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983, an officer’s assertion that his actions did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights because his conduct was permitted by an exception to the general warrant requirement is an affirmative defense that the officer must prove.) Armijo v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (In \u00a7 1983 case, “The officers bear the burden of establishing that [the asserted warrant exception existed] justifying the warrantless entry.”)(” Officers have the burden of establishing that [the asserted warrant exception existed] justifying the warrantless entry.”). Dalcour v. City of Lakewood, 492 F. App’x 924, 931 (10th Cir. 2012).<\/p>\n No immunity for cop who shot puppy in Colorado and Wyoming<\/b><\/p>\n Dog owners Wendy Love and Jay Hamm were delivering firewood for their business on the evening of June 29, 2019, when they pulled into the parking lot of a commercial building. It was Saturday and there were no other people around, so Love and Hamm pulled their dogs (Bubba and Herkhimer) out of the truck to stretch.<\/p>\n A police officer, Grashorn, arrived on the scene. After parking several feet away from Love and Hamm, the video showed Bubba, a 16-year-old dog, running toward the officer. The officer immediately pointed his gun at Bubba, and Love and Hamm asked Bubba to turn back. Although Bubba turned away, Herkimer, a 14-month-old puppy who had been resting in the couple’s van, jumped out at the commotion. Herkimer ran toward Grashorn and the officer shot him in the head and torso.<\/p>\n Love and Hamm sued Grashorn, alleging an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. In turn, Grashorn asserted qualified immunity and asked the judge to resolve the case in his favor without trial.<\/p>\n The Judge, Hon. Raymond Moore, concluded that a jury could reach different conclusions about the reasonableness of Grashorn’s conduct and refused to end the case outright.<\/p>\n “Although a reasonable jury could decide that Herkimer [the dog] posed a danger to the defendant [police officer], it could also decide that it did not pose an immediate danger. Because there is sufficient evidence of the latter, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs [The dog’s owners].” Order, Nov. 15, 2023. Civil Action 21-cv-02502-RM-KLM.<\/p>\n Grashorn appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the Order was legally defective.<\/p>\n At the hearing with the Tenth Circuit, one of the judges noted the following:<\/p>\n “Dogs that are clearly someone’s pets, often running loose, will pounce on people. What doesn’t seem to happen, more commonly, is that those dogs are shot and killed” from police. Federal appellate judge, Richard Federico. Love v. Grasshorn, 23-1397 (rehearing, Jan. 22, 2025), ca10.uscourts.gov\/sites\/ca10\/files\/oralarguments\/23-1397.mp3. <\/span><\/p>\n The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The EEOC has provided the definition of disability discrimination in the workplace:<\/strong><\/p>\n Disability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity covered by Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (which protects private, state, and local employees) or the Rehabilitation Act (which protects federal employees) treats a qualified employee or applicant unfavorably because of a disability. Disability laws prohibit discrimination as it applies to any aspect of employment, including hiring, disciplinary discharge, pay, job assignments, promotions or promotions, objective discharge, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.<\/p>\n Disability Discrimination and Employment Decisions | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n Mr. Gigax won a lawsuit against an employer who had wrongfully terminated an employee with a disability.<\/p>\n Dismissed Driver Wins Lawsuit Garbage Company Case of Discrimination Against Physically Disabled Worker. Civil Rights <\/b><\/p>\n<\/div> If you are looking for a legal consultation, we can help you find the best possible solution. We have a team with a lot of experience and professionalism for the best resolution of your case. Call us at (303)628-2367<\/u><\/a>or, in Wyoming, call us at (307)772-1822<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n Get a Free Case Analysis<\/b><\/p>\n Call today for a free consultation in Spanish!<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\npresence of an officer as a method of control.<\/li>\n
\ndirect orders are used.<\/li>\n
\ndodge punches and kicks.<\/li>\n
\n, chemical sprays, police dogs or tasers are used.<\/li>\n\n
Employment discrimination based on disability<\/h2>\n
<\/span><\/div><\/span><\/div>
![](\"http:\/\/lastimadura.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/cropped-gigax-logo-1.png\" "\\"cropped-gigax-logo-1\\""){kind=logo}
<\/span><\/div>