Supreme Court of Colorado· 9/11/2000

In Re Green

Citations

11 P.3d 1078
2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 5147
2000 Colo. LEXIS 1034
2000 WL 1277606

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

acknowledging that public criticism of judges by attorneys is an important public interest because many judges in Colorado are subject to retention elections
acknowledging that public criticism of judges by attorneys is an important public interest because many judges in Colorado are subject to retention elections
recognizing a “reduced governmental interest” when the attorney’s criticisms of the judge were communicated only to the judge and opposing counsel
several months after final order and award, but while motion to reconsider attorney fee award pending, attorney permitted to say judge considering motion was racist
\We conclude that the First Amendment prohibits disciplining Green on the basis of his communications with the judge because the communications did not make or imply false statements of fact.\
“[r]estrictions on attorney speech burden not only the attorney’s right to criticize judges, but also hinder the public’s access to the class of people in the best position to comment on the functioning of the judicial system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.