Erin O'Connell v. Woodland Park School District Woodland Park School District Board of Education Chris Austin, in his official capacity as Board Member Gary Brovetto, in his official capacity as Board Member David Illingworth II, in his official capacity as Board Member Suzanne Patterson, in her official capacity as Board Member and David Rusterholtz, in his official capacity as Board Member
Erin O'Connell v. Woodland Park School District Woodland Park School District Board of Education Chris Austin, in his official capacity as Board Member Gary Brovetto, in his official capacity as Board Member David Illingworth II, in his official capacity as Board Member Suzanne Patterson, in her official capacity as Board Member and David Rusterholtz, in his official capacity as Board Member
Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA2054
Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
Whether the judicially created cure doctrine allowing public bodies to “cure” prior violations of Colorado's Open Meetings Law (COML) contravenes COML's plain meaning and longstanding precedent.
Whether expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to apply to intentional violations of statutory notice requirements for the purpose of addressing a controversial issue outside the public eye contravenes the plain language and intent behind COML and this court's mandates regarding its interpretation.
Whether the court of appeals erred by expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to permit formal actions under section 24-6-402(8), C.R.S. (2023), to be reinstated retroactive to the date of the original violation and thereby preclude an award of prevailing-party attorney fees under section 24-6-402(9), C.R.S. 2023, to the plaintiff who successfully proved the original violation.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Opinion
1
Erin O'Connell, Petitioner
v.
Woodland Park School District; Woodland Park School District Board of Education; Chris Austin, in his official capacity as Board Member; Gary Brovetto, in his official capacity as Board Member; David Illingworth II, in his official capacity as Board Member; Suzanne Patterson, in her official capacity as Board Member; and David Rusterholtz, in his official capacity as Board Member, Respondents
No. 24SC34
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
July 22, 2024
Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA2054
Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
Whether the judicially created cure doctrine allowing public bodies to “cure” prior violations of Colorado's Open Meetings Law (COML) contravenes COML's plain meaning and longstanding precedent.
Whether expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to apply to intentional violations of statutory notice requirements for the purpose of addressing a controversial issue outside the public eye contravenes the plain language and intent behind COML and this court's mandates regarding its interpretation.
Whether the court of appeals erred by expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to permit formal actions under section 24-6-402(8), C.R.S. (2023), to be reinstated retroactive to the date of the original violation and thereby preclude an award of prevailing-party attorney fees under section 24-6-402(9), C.R.S. 2023, to the plaintiff who successfully proved the original violation.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Opinion
1
Erin O'Connell, Petitioner
v.
Woodland Park School District; Woodland Park School District Board of Education; Chris Austin, in his official capacity as Board Member; Gary Brovetto, in his official capacity as Board Member; David Illingworth II, in his official capacity as Board Member; Suzanne Patterson, in her official capacity as Board Member; and David Rusterholtz, in his official capacity as Board Member, Respondents
No. 24SC34
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc
July 22, 2024
Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA2054
Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.
Whether the judicially created cure doctrine allowing public bodies to “cure” prior violations of Colorado's Open Meetings Law (COML) contravenes COML's plain meaning and longstanding precedent.
Whether expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to apply to intentional violations of statutory notice requirements for the purpose of addressing a controversial issue outside the public eye contravenes the plain language and intent behind COML and this court's mandates regarding its interpretation.
Whether the court of appeals erred by expanding the judicially created cure doctrine to permit formal actions under section 24-6-402(8), C.R.S. (2023), to be reinstated retroactive to the date of the original violation and thereby preclude an award of prevailing-party attorney fees under section 24-6-402(9), C.R.S. 2023, to the plaintiff who successfully proved the original violation.
DENIED AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.