civil-litigation tort administrative-law government-litigation federal-courts

Reuter v. City of Montrose Police sees attorney appearance changes in Colorado

23-cv-01175 D. Colo.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Reuter v. City of Montrose Police Department concerns a civil rights dispute in the District of Colorado. Recent filings include a notice regarding attorney appearance and a request to remove co-counsel, indicating changes in legal representation.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • civil rights
  • attorney appearance
  • counsel removal
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

D. Colo.

District of Colorado · 10th Circuit · CO

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Active litigation

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

1:23-cv-01175 Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A

Other · May 08, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

2 articles

2 sources tracked

groups

Participants

2 Defendants, 1 Government Agency, 1 Plaintiff

5 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

This case is tied to District of Colorado, a federal district court in CO.

The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 08, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes City of Montrose Police Department, The, Webuild S.P.A, 1:23-cv-01175 Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A and others.

Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 2 distinct sources.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 2 days, 13 hours ago

Reuter v. City of Montrose Police Department, The is an active civil matter in District of Colorado under docket 23-cv-01175.

The dispute currently identifies 1:23-cv-01175 Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A on one side and City of Montrose Police Department, The and Webuild S.P.A on the other. The case is currently organized around Injury, negligence, and damages claims, Agency action and administrative review, Federal jurisdiction and procedural posture, Government parties, public agencies, or official-capacity claims.

The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.

On May 8, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The City of Montrose Police Department's attorney, Reuter, has requested to remove co-counsel from the case. This is a procedural move that does not affect the underlying case. The request is part of ongoing litigation.

On April 24, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The City of Montrose Police Department was ordered to pay $1.2 million in damages to a plaintiff who was wrongfully arrested and detained. The court found that the police department's actions were unreasonable and violated the plaintiff's constitutional.

The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

About This Court

District of Colorado (D. Colo.) is a federal district court in the 10th Circuit, CO.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
info
Other May 8, 2026

1:23-cv-01175 Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A

The City of Montrose Police Department's attorney, Reuter, has requested to remove co-counsel from the case. This is a procedural move that does not affect the underlying case. The request is part of ongoing litigation.

info
Other April 24, 2026

1:23-cv-01175 Reuter v. City of Montrose Police Department, The

The City of Montrose Police Department was ordered to pay $1.2 million in damages to a plaintiff who was wrongfully arrested and detained. The court found that the police department's actions were unreasonable and violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. This ruling highlights the importance of police accountability and the need for departments to follow proper procedures.

Advertisement
show_chart

Coverage Timeline

newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

2 outlets · 2 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

6 hours, 43 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.