John Lawrence Kane Jr.

How Judge Kane rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Position
district
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1977-12-16
Education
University of Colorado Boulder (B.A., 1958); University of Denver College of Law (J.D., 1960)
Signed orders read
7

How Judge Kane decides

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

What persuades

On FDCPA summary-judgment motions Kane treats whether a consumer's oral statements sufficiently communicated that a debt was disputed as a fact-intensive question unsuited to summary judgment, and denies the collector's motion (Dixon v. RJM).

“Medicredit's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) is DENIED.”

When a public-benefit program permits a religious-affiliation preference for secular community-continuity reasons but withholds a comparable accommodation for religious exercise, he treats the exception as defeating general applicability and applies strict scrutiny.

“Defendants cannot have it both ways, though. They cannot contend that the congregation preference does not apply to conduct that is necessarily religious, see id. at 47, while also arguing that the preference ‘is available only to religious providers,’ see id. at 49.”

Procedural preferences

At the pleading stage he finds a qualified-immunity defense insufficient where the constitutional law is clearly established and the officer directly participated in the challenged conduct, while dismissing the municipality on Monell claims for failure to allege a policy or custom.

“Defendants' Motion (Doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief ... and GRANTED as to the Town of Johnston on Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief. ... The Town of Johnston is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.”

Cautions

On a Rule 60(b) motion premised on a judge's untimely recusal he independently and comprehensively reviews the recused judge's rulings for partiality and denies vacatur, an extraordinary remedy, where the rulings show no favoritism.

“Mr. Baker's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

Arciniega v. Medicredit, Inc.
1:15-cv-00400-JLK-CBS · 2016-04-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Medicredit's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) is DENIED.”

Derosier v. Balltrip
1:15-cv-01026-JLK · 2016-03-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion (Doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief ... and GRANTED as to the Town of Johnston on Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief. ... The Town of Johnston is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.”

Motions to stay (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Baker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (and Blue Federal Credit Union)
1:19-cv-03416-JLK-NYW · 2022-01-18
Motion to vacate (plaintiff) Denied

“Mr. Baker's Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.”

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis
1:23-cv-02563-JLK · 2023-11-13
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show the applicable factors weigh in favor of preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the Waiting-Period Act. Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is, therefore, DENIED.”

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy
1:23-cv-02079-JLK · 2023-12-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED IN PART in that the Archdiocese of Denver is DISMISSED as a party to this case.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED (ECF No. 61).”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“The imminent trial obviates the need for the preliminary injunction, and thus that alternative request is likewise denied.”

Motion to exclude expert testimony (plaintiff) Denied

“And Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Witness Testimony (ECF No. 73) is DENIED as indicated above.”

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. Roy
1:23-cv-02079-JLK · 2024-06-04

Following a bench trial, Kane entered judgment for the plaintiffs only on the religious-affiliation aspect of their Free Exercise claim, issued a limited permanent injunction, and awarded nominal damages. He entered judgment for the state defendants on all remaining issues and claims. This substantive trial judgment is retained for its reasoning but excluded from motion statistics.

Lopez v. Griswold
1:22-cv-00247-JLK · 2026-03-26

After a bench trial, Kane upheld Colorado's individual campaign-contribution limits and voluntary spending-limit system against First Amendment challenges, entering judgment for the state officials. The judgment is retained for its substantive reasoning but excluded from motion statistics.

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Recent recency windows are criminal/immigration- and SSA-appeal-heavy; the seven contested civil durations sampled here (159-1264 days) skew long because they were chosen for being litigated. Most of these settled at magistrate-judge mediation. Illustrative, not a duration distribution.

Draft for Judge Kane with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kane, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Kane's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace