Case ID: f-appx_219/html/0814-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, State of Colorado; Elaine Fisher, San Miguel County Commissioner in her official capacity; Art Goodtimes, San Miguel County Commissioner in his official capacity; Vernon Ebert, San Miguel County Commissioner in his official capacity; the San Miguel County Planning Department, State of Colorado; Michael Rozycki, San Miguel County Planning Director, in his official capacity, Defendants-Ap-pellees, Pathfinder Development, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Willard F. Janke, Intervenor-Appellant.
    No. 06-1187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 16, 2007.
    John M. Palmeri, Franz Hardy, White & Steele, Kathryn A. Elzi, Elzi & Gurr Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
    Earl G. Rhodes, Jeffrey A. Wells, Younge & Hoekensmith, Grand Junction, CO, Steven J. Zwick, County Attorney’s Office, Telluride, CO, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Christopher Dale Cummins, James William Culichia, Felt, Monson & Culichia, LLC, Colorado Springs, CO, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
    Before BRISCOE, HOLLOWAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

Willard F. Janke appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to intervene in Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, No. 04-RB-1828 (D.Colo. Sept. 2, 2004). Because we determined that case is moot, we remanded with instructions to dismiss. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, Nos. 05-1295 & 05-1321, 2007 WL 779241 (10th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Janke’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 (eff. Dec. 1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).