Events & Announcements

Vol. 95 Emerging Scholar Award: Request for Submissions

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce the 2017 Emerging Scholar Award. This exclusive publication opportunity is open to all scholars who (1) have received their J.D. as of March 1, 2017, (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 95, scheduled for early 2018.

Click here for more information.


2017 Symposium – Justice Reinvestment: The Solution to Mass Incarceration?

Feb. 2 & 3, 2017 - Justice Reinvestment: The Solution to Mass Incarceration? The Denver Law Review presents its annual symposium on whether justice reinvestment initiatives are effective tools to end mass incarceration.

Registration is now open. Pending up to 14 CLEs.


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.


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
Aug102017

Red and White, Black and Blue: An Examination of the Supreme Court’s Racial Gerrymandering Jurisprudence Following Cooper v. Harris

[PDF]

Joel L. Hamner

On May 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court found that the North Carolina state legislature improperly gerrymandered two congressional districts by considering race as the predominant factor when re-drawing district lines in 2011. Applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review, the Court unanimously upheld the district court’s decision to strike down congressional district (CD) 1 but split 5-3 over the question of CD 12. (Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision.)

The case, Cooper v. Harris, marked the fifth time in the past twenty-five years that the Supreme Court examined one or both of these districts. In this case, the split over CD 12 arose from the defendants’ assertion that the changes to the district’s boundary lines were entirely partisan-driven and, therefore, lawful. That claim, combined with the plaintiffs’ failure to show how the state legislature could have achieved its partisan goals without affecting the district’s overall black voter age population (BVAP) was enough to convince three of the Court’s conservative judges that the legislature’s actions did not amount to racial gerrymandering. But in striking down CD 12, the majority made a departure from the “alternative ways” requirement laid out in a 2001 case, Easley v. Cromartie (commonly known as Cromartie II)—a departure which Justice Alito likened to the act of tossing away a napkin after a single use.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Aug102017

The Remote Seller Issue in Colorado: Reexamining Quill and Bellas Hess

[PDF]

Dianne Criswell & Grant Sullivan

In Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl (Brohl II), Justice Kennedy charged the legal system to find an “appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess.” He noted that changes in technology and consumer sophistication warrant a reconsideration of the physical presence nexus standard that currently serves to shield remote sellers from the obligation to collect and remit owed sales tax.

Whether a retailer must have a physical presence in the jurisdiction in which a sale occurs before it can be compelled to collect and remit owed sales tax was last addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota. At that time, out-of-state catalog retailers dominated the remote seller issue. In Quill, the Supreme Court affirmed the bright-line rule from National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue and held that companies without a “substantial nexus” in the state where customers lived did not have to charge sales tax. As retail activity has changed over the last 25 years, from primarily brick-and-mortar businesses to internet sellers, state and local governments have struggled to address both lost sales and use tax revenues and the impacts to resident business communities.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Aug092017

Fighting Climate Change in Post-Paris Agreement America: Reducing Livestock Emissions

[PDF]

Timothy Luetkemeyer

President Donald J. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement incited anger in environmentalists, and inspired praise from climate change deniers. Regardless of where one’s reaction falls on this spectrum, the withdrawal begs the question: “What’s next?” While the Trump Administration has indicated through its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement that it will not support efforts to combat climate change, many states, municipalities, organizations, and individuals will continue to fight to make our planet sustainable for future generations. This Article will offer one solution that state and local governments may implement to help fight climate change in the absence of federal leadership: an excise tax on animal products.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Aug022017

"Make Our Planet Great Again"

[PDF]

Jennifer Nelson

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the global agreement to mitigate the effects of global warming puts the United States in a unique position. Now, as a result of President Trump’s decision to discontinue climate change initiatives, cities and states are defying the federal government by adopting their own measures.  Further, since the United States is seen as a leader in climate change, by decreasing its participation, other parties to the Paris Agreement may question the United States’ commitment to the very important issue of climate change. Section I of this Article begins by providing a brief background on the Paris Agreement. Section II then explains the downfalls of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Finally, Section III gives a description of legislation currently proposed by a number of democratic senators.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May302017

Torts in the Virtual World

[PDF]

Roderick O'Dorisio

Last year, virtual reality (VR) and its counterpart, augmented reality (AR), erupted with popularity. At long last, the highly publicized head-mounted displays (HMDs), through which users can enter into a virtual world, went on sale to the public, including Facebook’s Oculus Rift, Samsung’s Gear VR, Sony’s PlayStation VR, and HTC’s Vive. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality have hit the mainstream. Indeed, in 2016, four major VR hardware platforms were released, as well as numerous VR applications, from games to immersive news reporting to social experiments. Also, let us not forget the summer of 2016, where the world went nuts for Pokémon GO, and as a result, local hospitals and the Holocaust Memorial Museum were forced to put up signs asking players to please stop catching Pokémon on their premises.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Corporate Governance, Shareholder Proposals, and Engagement Between Managers and Owners

[PDF]

J. Robert Brown, Jr.

In the corporate governance area, few regulations have greater importance than Rule 14a-8. Put in place in 1942, the provision requires companies to include in their proxy statements proposals properly submitted by shareholders. Phrased in precatory language, proposals typically advise rather than command. Rule 14a-8, therefore, provides a cost effective mechanism for obtaining the collective views of shareholders on designated matters.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Proving Shareholder Eligibility Under Rule 14a-8(b)

[PDF]

Sophie Fritz

Rule 14a-8 requires management to include a properly submitted shareholder proposal in the company's proxy materials. The Rule, however, limits applicability to owners holding at least $2,000 in market value of the company's securities, or 1%, of the outstanding voting shares for at least one year through the date of the meeting. Beneficial owners must establish their eligibility by submitting a written statement from the record holder. The registrant has fourteen days to provide notification of any deficiency in the required proof and the owner has fourteen days to respond.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

The Untimely Problem of the Timely Submission of Shareholder Proposals

[PDF]

Ashley Kincaid Lloyd

Rule 14a-8 requires companies to include properly submitted shareholder proposals in their proxy materials. The Rule, however, imposes a number of substantive and procedural requirements. Subsection (e)(2) provides that, in most cases, shareholders must submit a proposal no later than 120 days before the date the company distributed the proxy statement to shareholders the prior year. Failure to do so can result in exclusion.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

The Lack of Adequate Time to Address Deficiencies Under Rule 14a-8(f)

[PDF]

John Ikard

Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) sought to facilitate "functional corporate democracy" between a company's management and shareholders. The Rule allows shareholders to include proposals in a company's proxy materials. Management can, however, exclude a proposal on a number of substantive and procedural grounds. Subsection (f) requires that companies provide proponents with notice of, and an opportunity to correct, certain procedural deficiencies. Issuers have fourteen days to issue the notice and shareholders have the same period to respond.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
May232017

Limiting the Limited Number of Shareholder Proposals under   Rule 14a-8

[PDF]

Renee Himes

Rule 14a-8 (the Rule) provides shareholders with the opportunity to advise corporate action through inclusion of proposals in a company's proxy statement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) qualified the availability of the provision through a number of procedural thresholds for submission as well as substantive grounds for exclusion. These include a limit to a single submission per shareholder to each company.

Click to read more ...