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.


Colorado Supremes Poised to Address Defenses in Colorado‚Äôs 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 ...


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 ... 25 26 27 28 29