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. 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.

DLR Online

The online supplement to the Denver Law Review

Monday
Jun292009

Showdown at the South Jordan Big Top

By Noah Patterson

The Tenth Circuit refused to hold Salt Lake County employees liable under § 1983 for summoning police to a protest, even if the police improperly disbanded the protesters.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Jun172009

Dias v. City and County of Denver

By Katy Michaelis

The fight between pit bull owners and the City of Denver still has not ended, and this time the dog-lovers made it all the way to the Tenth Circuit in their challenge.  Diaz v. City and County of Denver, No. 08-1132 (10th Cir., May 27, 2009).  Plaintiffs, three pit bull owners and former residents of Denver, brought constitutional challenges against the City’s pit bull ban, all of which the district court dismissed under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs claimed that the ordinance was void for vagueness and violated substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.  The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the vagueness claim but reversed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and remanded the case for the district court to hear argument on this claim.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Jun092009

What is Normal?

By Amber L. Blasingame

What is normal?  Or rather, in the legal field, what is competence to stand trial?  According to the Tenth Circuit, competence may include a man who stomps his feet like a child and insists on testifying simultaneously with a witness a la Judge Judy.  United States v. Cornejo-Sandoval, 564 F.3d 1225, 1230 (10th Cir. 2009).  In United States v. Cornejo-Sandoval, the Tenth Circuit concluded that “Defendant was a difficult client, highly suspicious of his lawyers, but ultimately . . . ‘there were no signs of his having compromised competence related capacities.’”

Click to read more ...

Monday
Jun012009

Tenth Circuit Bends the Rules for a Defendant Due to Prosecutorial Indiscretion

By Megan Marlatt

In Douglas v. Workman, two Oklahoma inmates on death row were granted new trials due to prosecutorial indiscretion.  Yancy Douglas and Paris Powell were both convicted of murdering a fourteen year old girl in 1993.  Nos. 01-6094, 06-6091, 06-6093, 06-6102 (10th Cir. Mar. 27 2009).  The district court granted Powell a new trial, but, after receiving the same evidence, denied Douglas a new trial.  The Tenth Circuit, however, granted defendant Douglas the relief of a new trial under Brady v. Maryland despite the fact that he failed to meet the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)

Click to read more ...

Monday
May182009

Volume 86, O’Connor on Point in Upcoming Supreme Court Decision

By Jake Spratt

The Denver University Law Review’s recent issue on judicial accountability timely foreshadowed a highly anticipated Supreme Court decision regarding judicial elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company.  At issue in Caperton is whether West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a political donor’s case violated the claimant’s due process rights.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr272009

Tenth Circuit Avoids Addressing the Constitutionality of Investigatory Failures

By Jake Spratt

In Nicholas v. Boyd , the Tenth Circuit declined to address whether investigative officials who “cover up” information can be liable for denial of access to the courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr202009

Colorado Supreme Court Holds Local School District Funding Does Not Violate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights

By Benjamin Figa

In Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State, the Colorado Supreme Court recently addressed the applicability of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) with regard to school funding.  TABOR is a state constitutional amendment (Article X) that limits the amount of tax revenue the state can collect in a given year.  If revenues exceed the limits, the taxing entity must refund the excess money to taxpayers or seek voter permission to retain the surplus.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Apr122009

Summum: Supreme Court Reverses Tenth Circuit on Government Speech

By Ben Figa

The display of a permanent monument in a public park is government speech and not subject to the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court reached this decision recently in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665, slip op. (Feb. 25, 2009), which reversed the Tenth Circuit’s prior ruling.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Apr052009

The Tenth Circuit Stands Against “But-For Standing” in ERISA Claims

By Dave Frommell

In Chastain v. AT&T, four retired employees from AT&T or its subsidiaries saw their retirement benefits programs contractually transferred among various companies – most recently from AT&T to Lucent Technologies in 1996 – following their retirement.  No. 07- 6288, (10th Cir. 2009).  In 2003, Lucent eliminated several benefits from the plan, including a death benefit, Medicare Part B premiums, and dental coverage.  The retirees filed a class action ERISA claim against AT&T, alleging that AT&T should be forced to honor its “stand-alone plan with uniform enforceable promises for benefits for certain periods."

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Apr052009

Bounty Hunters Can Search Without Warrants Because They are Not State Actors

By Megan Marlatt

The Tenth Circuit in United States v. Poe held that bounty hunters did not constitute state actors under the Fourth Amendment because they did not search the defendant’s residence with law enforcement’s knowledge, and they did not search the premises with the intention of helping law enforcement.  No. 07-6337 (10th Cir. 2009). While apprehending the defendant who had skipped bail, five bounty hunters, in Poe, noticed methamphetamine paraphernalia and a gun in the defendant’s evidence which was later presented as evidence in the defendant’s trial.

Click to read more ...