Events & Announcements

Vol. 95 Emerging Scholar Award: Request for Submissions

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce the 2017 Emerging Scholar Award. This exclusive publication opportunity is open to all scholars who (1) have received their J.D. as of March 1, 2017, (2) have not yet accepted a tenure-track teaching position, and (3) have not held a full-time teaching position for more than three years.

The selected recipient will receive an award of $500, and the Denver Law Review will publish the winning entry in Issue 1, Volume 95, scheduled for early 2018.

Click here for more information.


2017 Symposium – Justice Reinvestment: The Solution to Mass Incarceration?

Feb. 2 & 3, 2017 - Justice Reinvestment: The Solution to Mass Incarceration? The Denver Law Review presents its annual symposium on whether justice reinvestment initiatives are effective tools to end mass incarceration.

Registration is now open. Pending up to 14 CLEs.


Denver Law Review Announces 2016 Emerging Scholar Award Winner

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce that it has selected Adam Feldman, a Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California, for the 2016 Emerging Scholar Award.

Click here for more information.


DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue, Navigating the Nuance: Pressing Issues in M&A Law and Practice

DLR Online's new special issue, Navigating the Nuance: Pressing Issues in M&A Law and Practice, features eleven student articles covering recent topics in mergers and acquisitions. This is the first collaboration between the Denver Law Review, DLR Online, and Professor Michael R. Siebecker. 
 
Prior special issues from the DLR Online can be found here.

DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue: The Shareholder Proposal Rule and the SEC

DLR Online's new special issue, The Shareholder Proposal Rule and the SEC, features eleven student articles covering Rule 14a-8, the epicenter of the shareholder rights movement. The issue represents the continued collaboration between the Denver Law Review, DLR Online, and Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr. 
 
Explore a thoughtful introduction to the issue by Professor Brown. Prior special issues from the DLR Online can be found here.

DLR Online Proudly Presents a Special Issue 

Taking it to the Next Level: Your Course, Your Program, Your Career

DLR Online's new special issue, Taking it to the Next Level: Your Course, Your Program, Your Career, features three articles by legal writing Professors who share their experiences in the classroom.

 


Vol. 94 Emerging Scholar Award: Request for Submissions

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce the 2016 Emerging Scholar Award. This exclusive publication opportunity is open to all scholars who (1) have received their J.D. as of March 1, 2016, (2) have not yet accepted a tenure-track teaching position, and (3) have not held a full-time teaching position for more than three years.

The selected recipient will receive an award of $500, and the Denver Law Review will publish the winning entry in Issue 1, Volume 94, scheduled for early 2017.

Click here for more information.


We've Changed Our Name!

The Denver University Law Review is now the Denver Law Review, and the DULR Online is now DLR Online.


Volume 93 Staff Announced

The Denver Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 93 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.


Denver Law Review Announces Emerging Scholar Award

The Denver Law Review is pleased to announce that it has selected Kate Sablosky Elengold, Practitioner-in-Residence at American University's Washington College of Law, for the Emerging Scholar Award of Volume 93.

Click here for more information!


 

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
Dec262016

Dying in the Digital Age: New Colorado Law Concerning Access to Digital Assets

[PDF]

Molly Zwerdlinger

Dealing with death is hard enough without the addition of legal matters. While many of us wish assets would just handle themselves upon the death of a loved one, those in charge of administering the estate need to make sure all assets are accounted for and protected.

As the baby boomers and members of Generation X age, we will be faced with a crisis concerning what to do with their digital assets upon death. Although the way we interact with the digital world has changed drastically over the past thirty years, there is good news for lawyers in Colorado. Colorado has recognized this oncoming crisis and has enacted a new law. The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (Act) addresses potential issues of dying in the digital age.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Dec222016

The Current State of Drone Law and the Future of Drone Delivery

[PDF]

Roderick O'Dorisio

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been around for almost a century, but these flying machines have primarily been regarded as primitive military weapons. Today, however, the use of UAVs (otherwise known as "drones") has been transformed into a versatile tool utilized by the public in numerous private and commercial realms. Indeed, the modern drone has countless applications. For example, drones have been successfully introduced into the law enforcement field and the film industry. They have been applied to hurricane hunting, 3-D mapping, wildlife conservation, agricultural development, and search and rescue operations. Other current uses include oil and gas exploration and disaster response. Additionally and unsurprisingly, UAVs have still experienced widespread popularity among hobbyists.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Dec212016

The Election of Donald Trump: Dramatic Changes for the Supreme Court Docket

[PDF]

Jane Rugg

Highlighted as a central campaign issue during the 2016 presidential election, Donald J. Trump's election on November 8th signals potentially significant changes for the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court over the next four years. However, less obviously and more immediately, Trump's successful election as the 45th president also means that several cases currently pending before the Supreme Court and the circuit courts concerning actions of the Obama administration will likely be dismissed before they are resolved. In essence, Trump will have the opportunity to begin shaping the judicial landscape even before he nominates and pushes through a Supreme Court justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Important issues in cases likely to be withdrawn or dismissed include immigration (in United States v. Texas), transgender rights (in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.), religious exemptions to providing contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act (in Zubik v. Burwell), and the Clean Power Plan.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Dec192016

Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School Dist. Re-1: A Missed Opportunity

[PDF]

Lauren Davison

Recognizing that the Nation's economic, political, and social security require a well-educated citizenry, the Congress (1) reaffirms, as a matter of high priority, the Nation's goal of equal educational opportunity, and (2) declares it to be the policy of the United States of America that every citizen is entitled to an education to meet his or her full potential without financial barriers.

The above quote is the "national policy with respect to equal educational opportunity" Congress enacted in 1974 as part of the General Education Provisions Act. The highly aspirational statement suggests Congress wanted the states to take decisive and comprehensive action in educating the citizens of the United States. The statement further suggests the federal government was willing, if not entirely prepared, to provide the financial backing for such an undertaking.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Dec022016

The "Long Arm" of the Law: Obtaining Personal Jurisdiction Over a Parent Company in Colorado

[PDF]

Anthony Lally

Under a new personal jurisdiction test in Colorado for out-of-state parent companies, plaintiffs now face a heavy factual burden and in some situations might be priced out of bringing a suit. In Griffith v. SSC Pueblo Belmont Operation Co. and Meeks v. SSC Colorado Springs Colonial Columns Operating Co., the Colorado Supreme Court promulgated a test to apply when determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a parent company that does not have minimum contacts within the state. The Supreme Court held that a court may obtain personal jurisdiction through imputing a subsidiary company’s jurisdiction onto the parent company. To impute personal jurisdiction, a court must find sufficient justification to pierce the subsidiary company’s corporate veil. Otherwise, a court must evaluate the personal jurisdiction of each entity separately. The Supreme Court imposes a heavy factual burden on the plaintiff, which incentivizes parent companies to form many layers of limited liability entities not distinct from itself. To prove this conclusion, this article will first examine the Supreme Court’s holding in Griffith and Meeks and then argue that the holdings in both cases force a plaintiff to satisfy a heavy factual burden and incur additional costs, which in turn incentivizes parent companies to form multiple entities without making each distinct from the parent company.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Dec012016

The Case for Revising Colorado’s Venue Rule

[PDF]

Jeffrey Ruebel

Two concepts form the basis governing courts’ authority to act: (1) personal jurisdiction and (2) venue. Personal jurisdiction has been used as a method to constrain the power of the sovereign and to protect litigants against unfair treatment at the hands of a state by asking whether the sovereign has authority over the parties. On the other hand, venue serves to make courts accessible to litigants but also protects against unfair treatment that might result from selecting an inconvenient location for trial.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Dec012016

Vasquez v. Lewis: Eliminating Colorado Residency in Determinations of Reasonable Suspicion

[PDF]

Alec Martinez

Although the state of Kansas seeking to control the flow of marijuana entering its boarders from Colorado, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Colorado residence cannot serve as a consideration in a finding of reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of a vehicle by law enforcement. In Vasquez v. Lewis, a Colorado motorist brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that two Kansas police officers violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by detaining him and searching his automobile without reasonable suspicion. Based upon Plaintiff Vasquez’s residency of Colorado, among other factors, the officers conducted a search of Vasquez’s vehicle under suspicion of drug trafficking. The district court held that Vasquez’s asserted constitutional right was not established and, therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Of particular importance in Vasquez was the Court’s decision to formally eliminate state residency as a consideration (absent extraordinary circumstances) in the context of determinations of reasonable suspicion in vehicle searches and seizures.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Oct202016

Extending the Authority of No Disparagement Clauses to Volunteers: Add it to a Long List of 2016 Election Surprises

[PDF]

Erik Carlson

The 2016 U.S. Presidential election brought a new surprise at every corner and for several, has never ceased to amaze. One such example is the tens of thousands of individuals who have now, through a nondisclosure agreement required for all volunteers with The Trump campaign, agreed to never criticize Donald Trump or the Trump family for the rest of their lives. Throughout the campaign, pundits and lay persons the like flocked to any kind of media or social media to express their “outrage” over the words said, or the actions taken by Mr. Donald Trump. But this time, the outrage might be different.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Oct042016

Warne v. Hall: Well Pleaded for Whom?

[PDF]

Hanie Kim

In Colorado, plaintiffs filing complaints in state court will be facing a new standard to survive a 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss. Complaints must now include sufficient facts to plausibly give rise to a claim for relief. While federal litigants will be familiar with this standard, having been adopted by the federal courts several years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court recently announced the adoption of the same "plausibility" criteria. The ruling in Warne v. Hall abolishes the liberal standard previously used in dismissing complaints only when it appeared a plaintiff could prove no set of facts to support their claim.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Sep142016

How Much Can Dumb Pipes Know? BMG v. Cox and Why a Knowledge Bar to DMCA Safe Harbor for Internet Service Providers is Inappropriate

[PDF]

Erik Estrada, Caitlin Cronin, and Bill Gillespie

In November 2015, in BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia announced a legal standard that if widely adopted would undo the tiered safe harbor protections afforded online service providers (OSPs) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). These services have different functions, capabilities, and needs. Recognizing that one size does not fit all for OSPs, Title II of the DMCA (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512) sets out different safe harbor qualifications for four different types of services: (1) transitory digital network communications (ISPs); (2) system caching (transitory storage); (3) information residing on systems or networks at direction of users (content hosts—websites, etc.); and (4) information location tools (search engines). However § 512 does require that at a minimum all OSPs "adopt[] and reasonably implement[], and inform[] subscribers and account holders of . . . a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders . . . who are repeat infringers." Despite Congress"s intent to differentiate between the four services, the court in BMG v. Cox used the termination policy requirement to impute a standard from §§ 512(c) and (d)—a lack of actual knowledge—to §§ 512(a) and (b). Other courts should not adopt this standard for ISP termination policies but should apply a stricter standard when the service is just Internet access.

Click to read more ...

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 28 Next 10 Entries »