Events & Announcements

Denver Law Review Announces 2016 Emerging Scholar Award Winner

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce that it has selected Adam Feldman, a Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California, for the 2016 Emerging Scholar Award.

Click here for more information.


DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue, Navigating the Nuance: Pressing Issues in M&A Law and Practice

DLR Online's new special issue, Navigating the Nuance: Pressing Issues in M&A Law and Practice, features eleven student articles covering recent topics in mergers and acquisitions. This is the first collaboration between the Denver Law Review, DLR Online, and Professor Michael R. Siebecker. 
 
Prior special issues from the DLR Online can be found here.

DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue: The Shareholder Proposal Rule and the SEC

DLR Online's new special issue, The Shareholder Proposal Rule and the SEC, features eleven student articles covering Rule 14a-8, the epicenter of the shareholder rights movement. The issue represents the continued collaboration between the Denver Law Review, DLR Online, and Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr. 
 
Explore a thoughtful introduction to the issue by Professor Brown. Prior special issues from the DLR Online can be found here.

DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue 

Taking it to the Next Level: Your Course, Your Program, Your Career

DLR Online's new special issue, Taking it to the Next Level: Your Course, Your Program, Your Career, features three articles by legal writing Professors who share their experiences in the classroom.

 


Vol. 94 Emerging Scholar Award: Request for Submissions

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce the 2016 Emerging Scholar Award. This exclusive publication opportunity is open to all scholars who (1) have received their J.D. as of March 1, 2016, (2) have not yet accepted a tenure-track teaching position, and (3) have not held a full-time teaching position for more than three years.

The selected recipient will receive an award of $500, and the Denver Law Review will publish the winning entry in Issue 1, Volume 94, scheduled for early 2017.

Click here for more information.


Symposium

Thank you to our panelists and attendees for a great symposium!

On February 4 & 5, 2016, The Denver Law Review presented its annual symposium on the role of intellectual property law in bringing new technologies to fruition and to the market. - Future World IP: Legal Responses to the Tech Revolution.

The Mabel Y. Hughes Charitable Trust was the Platinum Sponsor of the Denver Law Review 2016 symposium.


We've Changed Our Name!

The Denver University Law Review is now the Denver Law Review, and the DULR Online is now DLR Online.


Volume 93 Staff Announced

The Denver Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 93 Staff. Please join us in congratulating them in this accomplishment and supporting them in continuing the fine tradition of the Denver Law Review. Please click here to view the masthead.

Please click here to view the photo masthead.


Denver Law Review Announces Emerging Scholar Award

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce that it has selected Kate Sablosky Elengold, Practitioner-in-Residence at American University's Washington College of Law, for the Emerging Scholar Award of Volume 93.

Click here for more information!


 

Subscriptions and Submissions

For information on how to subscribe to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

DLR Online

The online supplement to the Denver Law Review

Thursday
Dec012016

The Case for Revising Colorado’s Venue Rule

[PDF]

Jeffrey Ruebel

Two concepts form the basis governing courts’ authority to act: (1) personal jurisdiction and (2) venue. Personal jurisdiction has been used as a method to constrain the power of the sovereign and to protect litigants against unfair treatment at the hands of a state by asking whether the sovereign has authority over the parties. On the other hand, venue serves to make courts accessible to litigants but also protects against unfair treatment that might result from selecting an inconvenient location for trial.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Dec012016

Vasquez v. Lewis: Eliminating Colorado Residency in Determinations of Reasonable Suspicion

[PDF]

Alec Martinez

Although the state of Kansas seeking to control the flow of marijuana entering its boarders from Colorado, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Colorado residence cannot serve as a consideration in a finding of reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of a vehicle by law enforcement. In Vasquez v. Lewis, a Colorado motorist brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that two Kansas police officers violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by detaining him and searching his automobile without reasonable suspicion. Based upon Plaintiff Vasquez’s residency of Colorado, among other factors, the officers conducted a search of Vasquez’s vehicle under suspicion of drug trafficking. The district court held that Vasquez’s asserted constitutional right was not established and, therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Of particular importance in Vasquez was the Court’s decision to formally eliminate state residency as a consideration (absent extraordinary circumstances) in the context of determinations of reasonable suspicion in vehicle searches and seizures.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Oct202016

EXTENDING THE AUTHORITY OF NO DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSES TO VOLUNTEERS: ADD IT TO A LONG LIST OF 2016 ELECTION SURPRISES

[PDF]

Erik Carlson

The 2016 U.S. Presidential election brought a new surprise at every corner and for several, has never ceased to amaze. One such example is the tens of thousands of individuals who have now, through a nondisclosure agreement required for all volunteers with The Trump campaign, agreed to never criticize Donald Trump or the Trump family for the rest of their lives. Throughout the campaign, pundits and lay persons the like flocked to any kind of media or social media to express their “outrage” over the words said, or the actions taken by Mr. Donald Trump. But this time, the outrage might be different.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Oct042016

WARNE V. HALL: WELL PLEADED FOR WHOM?

[PDF]

Hanie Kim

In Colorado, plaintiffs filing complaints in state court will be facing a new standard to survive a 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss. Complaints must now include sufficient facts to plausibly give rise to a claim for relief. While federal litigants will be familiar with this standard, having been adopted by the federal courts several years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court recently announced the adoption of the same "plausibility" criteria. The ruling in Warne v. Hall abolishes the liberal standard previously used in dismissing complaints only when it appeared a plaintiff could prove no set of facts to support their claim.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Sep142016

HOW MUCH CAN DUMB PIPES KNOW? BMG V. COX AND WHY A KNOWLEDGE BAR TO DMCA SAFE HARBOR FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IS INAPPROPRIATE

[PDF]

Erik Estrada, Caitlin Cronin, and Bill Gillespie

In November 2015, in BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia announced a legal standard that if widely adopted would undo the tiered safe harbor protections afforded online service providers (OSPs) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). These services have different functions, capabilities, and needs. Recognizing that one size does not fit all for OSPs, Title II of the DMCA (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512) sets out different safe harbor qualifications for four different types of services: (1) transitory digital network communications (ISPs); (2) system caching (transitory storage); (3) information residing on systems or networks at direction of users (content hosts—websites, etc.); and (4) information location tools (search engines). However § 512 does require that at a minimum all OSPs "adopt[] and reasonably implement[], and inform[] subscribers and account holders of . . . a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders . . . who are repeat infringers." Despite Congress"s intent to differentiate between the four services, the court in BMG v. Cox used the termination policy requirement to impute a standard from §§ 512(c) and (d)—a lack of actual knowledge—to §§ 512(a) and (b). Other courts should not adopt this standard for ISP termination policies but should apply a stricter standard when the service is just Internet access.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Aug302016

IN RE TAM: TREATING TRADEMARKS AS EXPRESSIVE SPEECH

[PDF]

Amy Deveraux

Simon Shiao Tam first sought to register the name of his band, The Slants, as a trademark in 2011. At the time, Mr. Tam was seeking to use his band's name to reclaim negative Asian stereotypes. However, the trademark examiner found that even though Mr. Tam was seeking to reappropriate the term, a substantial composite of people of Asian descent would find the stereotype offensive. So, the examiner refused to register the mark under the disparagement provision of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. Mr. Tam appealed the examiner’s decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which upheld the examiner's refusal to register the mark. Mr. Tam again appealed to the Federal Circuit, which initially upheld the examiner’s decision and held that precedent foreclosed Tam's argument that section 2(a) is unconstitutional. After that decision, the Federal Circuit sua sponte ordered a rehearing en banc on the question of the constitutionality of section 2(a).

Click to read more ...

Friday
Jul082016

FROM WRITS TO REMEDIES: A HISTORICAL EXPLANATION FOR MULTIPLE REMEDIES AT COMMON LAW

[PDF]

Aaron Belzer

In previous work, "Enforcing Rights," I examined how courts confine remedies to a single context in constitutional litigation, allowing enforcement of a constitutional right by providing either a criminal or a civil remedy, but not both. In contrast, outside the constitutional context, courts do not similarly limit remedies to a single context. This Essay builds on "Enforcing Rights" and previews a larger work suggesting a historical explanation for the emergence and persistence of multiple remedies in the non-constitutional context.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Jun212016

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND COLORADO'S COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

[PDF]

LaMar F. Jost & Marissa S. Ronk

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Act) mandates near-universal healthcare coverage for Americans. Tax-paying individuals and entities largely fund the statutory system that permits near-universal healthcare coverage. Taxpayers, therefore, are not collateral to any insurance policy purchased on a federally mandated health exchange. As a result, an unresolved issue in Colorado (and around the country) is whether the ACA disaffirms the collateral source rule. This article examines that issue under Colorado law.

Click to read more ...

Monday
May232016

ALDABA V. PICKENS: POLICE EXCESSIVE FORCE AND MENTALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS

[PDF]

Sanna Deerrose

In Aldaba v. Pickens, the Tenth Circuit effectively destroyed the protection that qualified immunity is meant to afford law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of Aldaba due to the decision’s reliance on unclear law less than one year after the Tenth Circuit issued this muddled opinion. This Comment explores Aldaba and explains how the Tenth Circuit took great liberty with the doctrine of qualified immunity in its decision and how its decision affects situations where police officers are responding to requests for help in subduing aggressive, mentally disturbed individuals. This Comment will discuss the ways in which the court skewed material facts in order to rely on ambiguous law, misapplied qualified immunity standards, and distorted precedent. This Comment explains that the Tenth Circuit’s ruling inappropriately created a new standard for police use of force in circumstances involving mentally disturbed individuals.

Click to read more ...

Monday
May092016

A BUSINESS OWNER’S DILEMMA: IS HIRING AN ATTORNEY TO HANDLE MY CASE WORTH IT?

[PDF]

Jason C. Astle

Most attorneys turn down small business clients with litigation needs because the amounts involved are too small. One survey of attorneys identified the average threshold for accepting cases as $100,000 in controversy. Compounding the problem, on the other side, clients often will not seek an attorney because the cost of hourly fees appears higher than the benefit of such legal representation. Because of this dichotomy, a substantial population of American small businesses generally goes without legal representation. However, alternative fee agreements may solve this problem, and become more important than changes to rules of civil procedure in providing “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

Click to read more ...