🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Zita Leeson Weinshienk

United States District Court for the District of Colorado district Retired 2011 · served 1979–2011 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 21 signed orders read

Judge Weinshienk no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Weinshienk decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

She required a civil claim to show a reasonable likelihood of success before asking volunteer counsel to undertake it.

“An attorney who is requested to take a case pro bono should be able to anticipate a reasonable likelihood of success, either by settlement or litigation.”

She protected trade secrets where the competitive harm of disclosure outweighed the requesting party's demonstrated need.

“The Court finds that the potential harm described by movants far outweighs the need Xerox has shown for any other information.”

She enforced an all-risk policy's unambiguous workmanship exclusions instead of converting the coverage into a performance guarantee.

“For the Court to conclude otherwise, ignoring the nature of the policies and exclusions in order to allow coverage, would be to turn these policies into something they are not: performance bonds or guarantees of contractual work.”

Procedural preferences

She treated cost bonds as discretionary and identified the merits, ability to pay, and likely defense costs as relevant factors.

“Factors which the Court may consider in determining whether to grant a motion to require posting of a cost bond include: (1) the merits of plaintiff’s claims; (2) the ability or willingness of plaintiff to pay any costs which might be assessed; and (3) substantial costs which might be incurred by defendant during preparation for trial.”

She deferred to an agency's technical judgment when the administrative record showed that relevant site conditions had been studied.

“Because the determination of the condition of the area was based on USFS’s technical expertise, the Court will not second guess the agency’s judgment.”

She used lien avoidance in bankruptcy to fix debtor-creditor rights and preserve the debtor's fresh start.

“An avoidance order advises the world of the unenforceable nature of the lien and extinguishes secured creditor rights which would otherwise survive the bankruptcy, allowing the debtors their fresh start.”

Cautions

She placed sanctions on counsel when counsel, rather than the client, was responsible for the improper filing.

“if the fault lies with the attorneys, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Park Lake Resources Ltd. Liability Corp. v. United States Department of Agriculture
· 1997-11-18
Challenge to agency action (plaintiffs) Denied

“judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs, and plaintiffs’ Complaint and cause of action are dismissed with prejudice.”

Calvert v. Aspen Skiing Co.
· 1988-12-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant Aspen Skiing Company) Denied

“ORDERED that defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Claim For Relief is denied.”

United States v. Colorado Supreme Court
· 1998-01-05
Summary judgment (state-court defendants) Granted in part

“defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment is granted-in part, and Rule 3.8(f)(1) is upheld as it applies to the practice of federal prosecutors outside of the grand jury. Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment is denied in all other respects.”

Canada v. Runyon
· 1995-08-22
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant Postmaster General) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, Alternatively, Motion For Summary Judgment is granted.”

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.
· 2008-08-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff LabCorp) Granted

“Plaintiff Lab-Corp’s Motion For Summary Judgment Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (Doc. No. 73; Mar. 2, 2007) is granted.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (Metabolite) Denied

“Metabolite’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 62; Nov. 8, 2006) is denied.”

Motion for summary judgment on post mandate royalties (Metabolite) Denied

“Metabolite’s Motion For Summary Judgment On Post-Mandate Royalties (Doc. No. 121; Aug. 17, 2007) is denied.”

Bangert Bros. Construction Co. v. Americas Insurance Co.
· 1995-06-21
Motion for judgment on pleadings treated as summary judgment (defendant Americas Insurance Company) Granted

“defendant Americas Insurance Company’s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings, treated as motion for summary judgment, is granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant Allendale Mutual Insurance Company) Granted

“defendant Allendale Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion For Summary Judgment is granted.”

United States v. Colorado Supreme Court
· 1994-12-14
Motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable party (defendants) Denied

“the Motion Of Defendants To Dismiss Complaint For Failure To Join An Indispensable Party is denied.”

Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (defendants) Granted

“the Motion Of Defendants To Dismiss Complaint For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted.”

Duden v. Rosenthal (In re Duden)
· 1989-08-02
Bankruptcy appeal (debtors) Granted

“ORDERED that the Order entered by the Bankruptcy Judge on January 10,1989, is reversed.”

Clements v. United States Bankruptcy Court (In re Asher)
· 1994-08-24
Bankruptcy appeal (bankruptcy trustee) Denied

“ORDERED that the October 8,1993, Final Order of Bankruptcy Judge Donald E. Cor-dova is affirmed.”

Stock v. Exchange Network Corp. (In re Exchange Network Corp.)
· 1988-10-26
Bankruptcy appeal (attorney Ronald Stock) Denied

“ORDERED that the Opinion and Order of April 14, 1988, of Bankruptcy Judge Sidney B. Brooks is affirmed.”

Motion for rehearing (attorney Ronald Stock) Denied

“appellant’s Motion For Rehearing is denied.”

Zeman v. Babbin (In re Babbin)
· 1993-10-28
Bankruptcy appeal (Chapter 13 trustee) Granted in part

“ORDERED that the Order of the Bankruptcy Court is reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

Sisneros v. Booker
· 1997-11-26
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“petitioner’s Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2241 By A Person In Federal Custody, is granted as explained herein.”

Motion for immediate release (petitioner) Denied

“petitioner’s Motion For Immediate Release Pending Final Resolution Of This Habeas Corpus Action is denied.”

Motion for immediate status conference (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“petitioner’s Motion For Immediate Status Conference is moot.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The nine sampled archival civil cases included two securities matters, two civil-rights cases, two environmental matters, and one each involving insurance, Social Security, and contract claims. This historical slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.

A historical record

Judge Weinshienk no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.