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 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.

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 ...

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 ...