Events & Announcements

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 animal law and free speech.

This event is open to the public. Registration details to be announced.


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.

DLR Online

The online supplement to the Denver Law Review

Monday
Dec212009

WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Service: Government Representation of Public and Private Interests

By Nicholas Murray

In July 2009, WildEarth Guardians presented the Tenth Circuit with a very familiar set of facts: a group sought to intervene in an ongoing case on the side of the government.  Would-be intervenor, Mountain Coal Company (MCC), owns and operates West Elk coal mine in western Colorado.  Within this large underground mine, MCC owns two viable seams of coal, both of which contain a significant amount of methane gas.  This coal bed methane (CBM) is “toxic to miners” and “could cause an explosion in the mine.”  Because of the substance’s volatility, the permitting process requires that MCC show how it will pump out the CBM.  MCC proposed to use a methane-drainage well to vent the gas out of the mine and into the atmosphere.  Before MCC could begin venting the gas, the United States Forest Service was required to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  The Forest Service prepared the EIS as required and approved the construction of the ventilation system.  Subsequently, MCC began constructing the system and mining the seam for its resources.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Dec092009

Wilderness Society v. Kane County, Utah

By Lindsey Houseal

The contentious R.S. 2477 debate has again reached the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  This time, in Wilderness Society v. Kane County, Utah, No. 08-4090, (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2009), two environmental groups (Plaintiffs) challenged Kane County’s exercise of management authority over roads within the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and three other federally-managed parks within Kane County.  In 2003, Kane County (the County) representatives removed federal signage restricting off-road vehicles on roads within the park boundaries. Thereafter, the County erected new signs, many of which opened roads previously closed to motor vehicles.  Furthermore, in October of 2005, an ordinance passed authorizing the County to post new signs designating roads as open to motor vehicle use.  Plaintiffs alleged that both the County’s removal of the signs and the enactment of the ordinance conflicted with the federal government’s management authority.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Nov162009

First, do no harm. Second, crush the competition?

By Darren Kafka           

In Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court for the District of Colorado's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-respondent Mercy Medical Center of Durango ("Mercy").  The plaintiffs-appellants, Dr. Mark Bevan ("Dr. Bevan") and his practice, Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. ("Four Corners Nephrology"), brought an anti-trust action against Mercy.  Four Corners provides an interesting snapshot of anti-trust law in the medical-provider setting.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Oct282009

Denial of Discretionary Immigration Relief Insufficient for Violation of Due Process Claim

By Amber Blasingame

The Tenth Circuit in Arambula-Medina v. Holder dismissed a petition to review the denial of a cancellation of removal application for lack of jurisdiction.  No. 08-9589 (10th Cir. July 10, 2009).  Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.”  Specifically, the Tenth Circuit does not have jurisdiction to review decisions concerning “the discretionary aspects of a decision concerning cancellation of removal.”

Click to read more ...

Monday
Oct122009

Circuit Split Alert: Chevron and the Reconsideration of Deportation Orders

By Webster C. Cash III

In a decision turning on application of the famed Chevron analysis, the Tenth Circuit recently clashed with their Fourth Circuit brethren in holding that federal law prohibits motions to reconsider alien deportation orders subsequent to removal from United States soil.  Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 2009 No. 07-9564 (10th Cir. Sep. 15, 2009).

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Aug202009

Keep Your Eye on the Iqbal

By Dave Frommell

On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, a case in which a pre-trial detainee filed a Bivens action against numerous federal officials.  The FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service detained Iqbal following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, isolating him from the general prison population by placing him in an administrative maximum security prison (ADMAX) in New York.  Iqbal’s claim alleged that the officials, including former attorney general John Ashcroft and former FBI director Robert Muller, subjected him to “harsh conditions of confinement” in ADMAX solely because of his race, religion, or national origin.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Aug092009

Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, and a Caterpillar

By Noah Patterson

In Martinez v. Caterpillar, Inc., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court for the District of New Mexico’s judgment in favor of the defendant-respondent Caterpillar, Inc. (“Caterpillar”).  The plaintiff-appellant Andrew Martinez (“Martinez”) brought a negligence and strict products liability action against Caterpillar.  Martinez appealed the jury decision, arguing that the district court inadequately instructed the jury by providing instructions that Caterpillar could not be liable if the machine’s condition substantially changed before the accident and by failing to provide instructions directing that Caterpillar was required to give adequate instructions for the machine’s use.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Aug022009

What's New About Discrimination

By Katy Michaelis

The Tenth Circuit upheld a lower court decision to grant summary judgment for the New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI) in a disability discrimination suit, finding that the plaintiff, Sarah Ellenberg, failed to make a prima facie case for her discrimination claims.  Ellenberg v. New Mexico Military Institute, No. 08-2112 (10th Cir. Jul 10, 2009).

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Jul122009

Can One Injure an Unborn Child?

By Courtney Butler

In People v. Lage, the Colorado Court of Appeals was faced with one of the hottest topics in the current legal world: When is an unborn child injured in the womb considered a “person” or “child”?  Defendant, speeding to evade a police officer, swerved into oncoming traffic and caused a head-on collision.  The driver of the other vehicle was eight and one-half months pregnant.  Although delivered alive through an emergency cesarean section, the infant died approximately one hour later due to the blunt force trauma from the collision.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Jul082009

Trading Guns: The Fourth Amendment’s Reasonable Suspicion Requirements 

By Mike Davidson

In U.S. v. Brown, appellant William Brown was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.  No. 08-8086, (10th Cir. Jun. 9, 2009).  Brown argued that the arresting officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by pulling over his car without reasonable suspicion.  The Tenth Circuit clarified the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions by holding that an officer is justified in conducting a traffic stop, and subsequently searching a vehicle, after observing certain suspicious behavior.

Click to read more ...