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

Sunday
Mar222009

A Life Worth Living: To Be or Not to Be in Colorado

By Amber L. Blasingame

In a case of first impression in Colorado, Dotson v. Bernstein, the Colorado Court of Appeals applied the same rule, recognizing a claim of injury for a woman who gave birth to a healthy child following a failed termination of the pregnancy.  Dotson v. Bernstein, No. 08CA0020, slip op. (Colo. App. Mar. 5, 2009).  The Colorado Supreme Court previously recognized a parent’s claim for "wrongful birth" when a doctor’s negligent pre-natal action led to the birth of an impaired child.  Lininger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1988).

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Mar222009

Sampson v. Coffman

By Dusty Berger

Sampson v. Coffman posed the question of whether people who oppose the annexation of their neighborhood into a nearby municipality must register as an issue committee with government authorities.  2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70583 (D. Colo. Sep. 18, 2008).  Senior District Judge Matsch concluded that the plaintiffs were not required under Colorado law to register as an issue committee until the municipality’s governing board had voted to conduct an annexation election and published notice of the election required under Colorado law.  The judge also concluded that, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Colorado could not require the neighborhood annexation opponents to register until the notice of election was published.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Mar082009

The SORNA Mess

By Megan Marlatt

Since its effective date on July 27, 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) has already caused a circuit split concerning two related issues. Since November of 2008, the Tenth Circuit alone has issued three opinions about the applicability and application of SORNA to sex offenders convicted of their sex offenses prior to the effective date of SORNA (past offenders).

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Can Expert Witnesses Change their Minds? 

By Mike Nelson

Yes, but a recent decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals suggests there is a right and wrong way to do so.  

In the fascinating case of Pace v. Swerdlow, the plaintiffs sued a medical expert that they themselves had retained in an underlying medical malpractice case. In the underlying case, the expert previously testified favorably for the plaintiffs, before dramatically reversing his opinion on the eve of the summary judgment hearing. While every state grants expert witnesses immunity from suits initiated by the opposing side, same-side (“friendly”) expert immunity remains an open question in many jurisdictions. 

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Court Dismisses Denver Post Case Seeking Governor's Personal Cell Phone Records

By Dustin Berger

“Public business is the public’s business.”

Denver Publ. Co. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of the County of Arapahoe, Colo., 121 P.3d 190, 196 (Colo. 2005) (quoting Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, Open Public Records for Colorado 1-2 (Research Publ’n No. 126, 1967)).

On October 14, 2008, the Denver District Court dismissed a case in which The Denver Post had sought access to billing records for Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s private mobile phone.

In Denver Post Corp. v. Bill Ritter, Jr., The Denver Post had sought the billing records under the Colorado Open Records Act (“the Act”), which allows any person to access public documents. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-201 (2008). Although Governor Ritter conceded that he had used his personal cell phone to conduct public business, he argued that the billing records were not public records under the Act.  Denver Post Corp. v. Bill Ritter, Jr., No. 08CV7083 (D. Denver Oct. 14, 2008) (ordering dismissal).

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Tenth Circuit Holds Testimony Showing Juror Dishonesty Inadmissible

By Megan Marlatt

In United States v. Benally, the Tenth Circuit held that juror testimony from deliberations showing that other jurors had lied during voir dire was inadmissible under F.R.E. 606(b).  Fed. R. Evid. 606(b).  546 F.3d 1230, 1241-42 (10th Cir. 2008).  The Tenth Circuit added its voice to the Circuit Split about what can be done under F.R.E. 606(b) when juror testimony from deliberations revealed that jurors have been dishonest during voir dire.  Under F.R.E. 606(b), all juror testimony concerning things that were said during deliberations is inadmissible in appellate hearings.  Among other things, discussions during deliberations involving outside influences, such as newspapers, are exempted from the rule, and thus admissible.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Tenth Circuit breaks ranks on Crime Victim’s Rights Act

By Jake Spratt

In In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals lent its voice to a growing circuit split involving the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”).  The CVRA grants enumerated rights to victims of federal crimes, such as the right to speak at sentencing and to be notified of any public hearings.  If a lower court abridges any of these rights, the CVRA specifically grants victims the right to “petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.”  The Tenth Circuit, breaking sharply from the Ninth and Second Circuits before it, held that a victim petitioning for a writ of mandamus under the CVRA must show a “clear and indisputable right” for issuance of the writ.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Tenth Circuit Chooses Textualism Over Functionalism

 By Scott Valent

In Cannon v. Gates, 538 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 113(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) precluded the Cannons’ (plaintiffs) CERCLA claims against the U.S. Government . The Cannons’ dispute with the Government stemmed from the Government’s long-running delays in cleaning up the Cannons’ property, located near the Dugway Proving Grounds in Dugway, UT, after the Government conducted weapons training exercises on the property during World War II. Because the Government had failed to take action to clean up the hazardous waste that remained on the Cannons’ property, the Cannons filed two claims against the Government pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act  to compel the Government to remove its hazardous waste from their property.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Colorado Supremes Poised to Address Defenses in Colorado’s Premises Liability Statute

By Ben Figa

The debate is heating up in Colorado about whether landholders can claim defenses of comparative negligence, pro rata liability and assumption of risk for injuries prior to 2006.  One published opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals has said no and two others have said yes.

Colorado’s Premises Liability statute has caused many problems for lawyers, legislators and judges.  Essentially, the invitee-licensee-trespasser distinctions were once recognized at common law, but then the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned the common law classification scheme in favor of the traditional negligence concept.  The state legislature overruled the Colorado Supreme Court by passing the Colorado Premises Liability Act, which retained those common law distinctions.  The statute, when originally written, did not explicitly recognize the defenses of comparative negligence, pro rata liability and assumption of risk.  In 2006, the legislature amended the statute to include those defenses  Although the law is more settled now, the question remains: were those defenses available prior to the 2006 amendment?

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Feb152009

Hernandez-Carrera: Deference to Agencies' Interpretations After Supreme Court Decisions

By Amber Blasingame 

Three years after the Court decided National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, the Tenth Circuit finally weighs-in on deference to agency interpretations subsequent to contrary judiciary interpretations.  545 U.S. 967 (2005).  In Hernandez-Carrera v. Carlson, the Tenth Circuit holds that courts should defer to agency interpretations published subsequent to judiciary opinions, even U.S. Supreme Court interpretations.  547 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2008).  The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Carrera departs from other circuits which have generally held that an earlier Supreme Court interpretation prevails over a subsequent contrary agency interpretation.  Tran v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2008); Thai v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2004).

Click to read more ...

Page 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28