Apr 12, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
Apr 5, 2009 in Student Articles 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."
Apr 5, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
Mar 22, 2009 in Student Articles 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).
Mar 22, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
Mar 8, 2009 in Student Articles 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).
Feb 15, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
Feb 15, 2009 in Student Articles By Dustin Berger
“Public business is the public’s business.”
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).
Feb 15, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
Feb 15, 2009 in Student Articles 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.
