DLR Online Special Features

Please visit here for a list of special feature editions of the DLR Online.

Events & Announcements

Apr. 4, 2018 - The Denver Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its Recent Developments in the Tenth Circuit issue. For details on the issue and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!

Mar. 5, 2018 - The Denver Law Review will soon be accepting submissions for the 2018 Emerging Scholar Award. For details on the award including eligibility, award information, and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!

2018 Symposium – Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law

Feb. 9, 2018 - Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law The Denver Law Review  presents its Volume 95 Symposium, Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law. Uproar will explore the relationship between animals and the law.

This event is open to the public. To register for this event, please click here.

Volume 95 Staff Announced

The Denver Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 95 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.

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.


Ramsey Winch, Inc. v. Henry

Laura Monty

Despite opposition from employers and business property owners alike, the Tenth Circuit recently upheld “take your guns to work” laws.  In Ramsey Winch Inc. v. Henry, a number of Oklahoma businesses, initially led by Whirlpool Corporation, challenged the constitutionality of Oklahoma laws that prohibit employers from banning firearms located in locked vehicles on company property.

Click to read more ...


Hennagir v. Utah Department of Corrections and an Employer’s Ability to Circumvent the ADA 

By J. Matthew Soper

In Hennagir v. Utah Department of Corrections the Tenth Circuit addressed whether “a job function that is rarely required in the normal course of an employee’s duties may nonetheless be an essential job function under the ADA.”  The issue arose after a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  Barbara Hennagir brought an action against the Utah State department of corrections (DOC), alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in connection with DOC’s refusal to allow her to continue in her position without completing the required physical safety training.

Click to read more ...


United States v. Johnson

By J. Matthew Soper

In United States v. Johnson, the Tenth Circuit addressed the “novel issue of whether an individual can have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in a storage unit rented with a stolen identity.”  The defendant, Johnson, instructed his girlfriend to rent a storage unit so that the he had a place to store his guns.  The girlfriend used a driver’s license from a woman named Haroldsen.  Johnson’s girlfriend went to the storage unit, posing as Haroldsen, and paid for the unit with cash.  Later, police searched the unit without a warrant.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that Johnson did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a storage unit rented with a stolen identity.

Click to read more ...


Weise v. Casper: Leave Your Free Speech at the Door

By Nicholas Murray

According to the Tenth Circuit, dissent is un-American when the President of the United States is involved.  In Weise v. Casper, a split Tenth Circuit recently handed down a long-awaited First Amendment case involving the use of a bumper sticker on private property.  Appellants, Leslie Weise and Alex Young appeal the Bivens complaint that was dismissed by the lower court. 

Click to read more ...


Brown v. Day

By Lee Fanyo

In Brown v. Day, 555 F.3d 882, 885 (10th Cir. 2009), the Tenth Circuit addressed whether an individual challenge to a state administrative agency’s decision in federal court is the type of state proceeding that requires abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).  The Tenth Circuit exercised jurisdiction and held that a federal plaintiff's challenge to a state administrative agency’s decision to terminate Medicaid benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the type of proceeding entitled to Younger abstention because the ruling would contradict with Congressional intent and misinterpret Supreme Court precedent.

Financing healthcare costs without bankrupting states and the federal government is a critical issue for the entire healthcare system.  States, now more than ever, must find ways to reduce healthcare expenditures. Caught in the crossfire is forty-six year old Dena Brown.  With the mind of a three-year-old child, the state and federal government finance her every day care.  In an apparent turn of fortune, Brown became the beneficiary of a trust worth $68,000.  As a result, the Kansas Health Policy and Finance administrative agency (HPF) terminated Ms. Brown’s benefits because a Kansas statute deemed her trust an “available asset” to pay for her care.  

Click to read more ...


United States v. Burgess

By Erin Snow

When the Constitution was written over two hundred years ago, the Industrial Revolution was still decades away, and “state of the art” technologies included butter churners and buggies.  The Founders never could have imagined contemporary technologies such as computers and hard drives, capable of storing the information equivalent of entire libraries within a tiny physical space.  In United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009), the Court considered, but declined to resolve, the extent to which the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of digital storage devices. 

Click to read more ...


Wackerly v. Workman: Better Hand Wins

By Andrea Ahn

In Wackerly v. Workman, the Tenth Circuit upheld a death penalty sentencing finding that Mr. Wackerly had failed to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”  Nos. 07-7034 & 07-7056 (10th Cir. Sept. 15, 2009).

Click to read more ...


Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38

By Rachel Kranz

The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District No. 38 comes three years after Erica Corder delivered a short thirty second speech to her graduating class at Lewis Palmer High School.  As required, Corder presented her speech to the school principal before graduation.  The speech was approved, but its content as presented at the ceremony was quite different.  After speaking about Jesus Christ in her valedictory speech on the day of graduation, Corder was escorted to the vice-principal’s office where she learned that she would have to issue an apology before she could receive her diploma.  Her apology was distributed via email, and she subsequently received her diploma. 

However, Lewis Palmer hadn’t heard the last from Corder.  Soon after, the student brought six claims against her former school district, including: 1) a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech, 2) a violation of the First Amendment in compelled speech, 3) a violation of her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, 4) violating her First amendment freedom of religion rights, 5) a violation of Colorado Revised Statute § 22-1-120, and 6) a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The district court dismissed each claim under F.R.C.P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings.  The Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, reviewing all of Corder’s six claims, with the exception of the Establishment Clause claim.  The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling on each of the five claims before it.  A petition for certiorari has since been filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Corder’s behalf.

Click to read more ...


Green v. Post

By Adam J. Duerr

On June 16, 2006, Pueblo County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Jonathon Post struck and killed Willis Green while speeding through an intersection without his emergency lights or sirens during his pursuit of a vehicle involved in the alleged theft of $30 worth of gas.  In Green v. Post, 573 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2009), Green’s widow and her two children (Plaintiffs) brought suit against Deputy Post, the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Department, and the County of Pueblo.  Plaintiffs asserted six state law claims and three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a substantive due process violation under the 14th Amendment.  Defendants moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) two state law claims against the Sheriff’s Department in addition to the three § 1983 claims on grounds of qualified immunity.  The district court converted Defendants’ motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56, and it granted summary judgment for Defendants on two state law claims but denied summary judgment as to the § 1983 claims.  The Tenth Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, reversed and remanded the case to the district court for entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, entitling Deputy Post to qualified immunity.

Click to read more ...


Williams v. Jones

By Ana Gutierrez

In an ordinary Sixth Amendment challenge to plea-bargaining, the defendant typically argues that he did not get a right to fair trial as a result of his deficient counsel.  The problem that arises, and the question that was recently presented to the Tenth Circuit, in Williams v. Jones, No. 06-7103 (10th Cir., July 8, 2009), is what, if any, remedy should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial?  In Williams, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of ineffective assistance of counsel at plea bargaining but reversed the constitutionally imposed remedy and remanded the case for the district court to render a remedy that comes as close as possible to redressing the constitutional violation, and one that is not limited by State law.

Click to read more ...