DLR Online Special Features

Please visit here for a list of special feature editions of the DLR Online.


Events & Announcements

Mar. 10, 2019 - The Denver Law Review will soon be accepting submissions for the 2019 Emerging Scholar Award. For details on the award including eligibility, award information, and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


Jan. 9, 2019 - The Denver Law Review is pleased to open registration for our 2019 Symposium, Driven by Data: Empirical Studies in Civil Litigation and Health Law. We have a top-class list of speakers for this year's symposium and we look forward to seeing you there! Register by following this link.


Apr. 4, 2018 - The Denver Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its Recent Developments in the Tenth Circuit issue. For details on the issue and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


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.

Monday
Apr042011

American Atheists v. Davenport: The Reasonable Observer’s Contested Role in Establishment Clause Cases

Chris Linas

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”[1] The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause against the states, prohibiting the states and their political subdivisions from doing the same.[2] A recent Tenth Circuit case has underscored the longstanding conflict over how to interpret this provision.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr042011

Creative Financing with New Markets Tax Credits

Thane R. Hodson and Barry A. Burns

A new high school in a Los Angeles inner city neighborhood. A manufacturing plant for custom electrical equipment in Phoenix, Arizona. A new building for a Denver, Colorado city center hospital. What do all these diverse projects have in common? New Markets Tax Credits (“NMTC”) helped provide creative financing to bring each of these real estate projects to completion, creating jobs and providing vital services to their communities.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar312011

False Security: How Courts Have Improperly Rendered the Protections of the Protective Order Illusory

Ramona L. Lampley

The protective order is perhaps one of the most useful and “taken for granted” discovery devices contemplated by the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In civil litigation, in which confidential, proprietary, and trademark information is routinely demanded through written discovery requests, the parties often ward off heated discovery disputes through the entry of a joint protective order. The purpose of this type of protective order is to permit the parties to produce business information—for example, information concerning the design and testing of a particular product—without fear that the information will be disseminated publicly, and with a court order that the information be used only for purposes of the present litigation.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar312011

A Friend Request from the SEC? How Recent Scrutiny of Facebook May Lead to Tighter Regulation of Private Companies

Brent M. Westrop

Noted professor Louis Loss described the function of federal securities law as “disclosure, again disclosure and still more disclosure.”[1] Why disclosure? As Congress stated in enacting the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[2]:

No investor, no speculator, can safely buy and sell securities upon exchanges without having an intelligent basis for forming his judgment as to the value of the securities he buys or sells.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Mar282011

A Majority’s Misguided Definition of Indian Land

Joanna Thompson

In the Tenth Circuit’s disposition in Hydro Resources, Inc. v. EPA,[1] the majority interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government[2] to resolve a land dispute centered on the classification of a tract of land as “Indian lands.”[3] In doing so, the Tenth Circuit applied the two-prong test established by the Court in Venetie and abolished its previous standard. As noted by the dissent, the manner in which the Tenth Circuit applied Venetie effectively overrode decades of circuit level case law.

Click to read more ...

Tuesday
Mar222011

Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence in the Context of Excessive Force: Why the Supreme Court Needs to Remove the Handcuffs from the Federal Circuit Courts

Justin Cohen

The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” Inherent in the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is a prohibition on the government’s use of excessive force to effectuate an arrest, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 supplies a conduit for arrestees to bring excessive force claims against the government in federal court. While seemingly uncomplicated, excessive force claims throughout the federal district courts have produced a confusing array of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. In Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, the Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could have determined that two police officers of Las Cruces, New Mexico, used excessive force in handcuffing the petitioner after he accidentally shot himself twice. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded his § 1983 action against the city and police officers to the district court.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Mar212011

Comment on Rosillo-Puga v. Holder

Aaron Hall

In Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) bars an alien who has been physically removed from the United States from filing a motion to reopen or reconsider his removal proceedings. Rosillo-Puga involved an alien the court ordered removed for having a conviction for battery in Indiana. The immigration judge ruled that the battery conviction constituted an aggravated felony and a crime of domestic violence for purposes of immigration law. The alien was removed to his native country of Mexico. Subsequently, in another case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a conviction for battery in Indiana was not an aggravated felony or a crime of domestic violence for purposes of immigration law. Rosillo-Puga subsequently filed a motion to reconsider his order of removal.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar172011

The “Bounty” and Strengthened Whistleblower Protection Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Reform Act

John F. Reha

Congress passed the new Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”) during the summer of 2010; President Obama signed the bill into law on July 21, 2010.[2] The whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank may be found at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 (§ 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). These provisions have the potential of engrafting a new, robust whistleblower factor upon securities regulation and enforcement, and further may assist the SEC in marshalling its increasingly scarce enforcement assets to those cases upon which the SEC already has received information of a potential securities violation.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar172011

Practical Domestic Mediation 

Melanie Douglas

With the current financial crisis our country is experiencing, attorneys must be willing to adapt to the needs of those involved in the legal system. One area in which we have not placed enough emphasis is offering non-adversarial options for domestic cases. For quite some time, the processes offered to parties in family law cases have been limited to 1) the traditional adversarial route through the court system, 2) a mediation and/or arbitration approach, or 3) the collaborative law setting. Each of these avenues can still be extremely expensive and frustrating for the average client.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar172011

Telling Lies to Sylvia Crawford

Sheila K Hyatt

Sylvia Crawford and her husband, Michael Crawford, were both present and implicated in the stabbing of the victim. Sylvia was interrogated by police and she gave a tape recorded statement that contradicted the self-defense claim raised by her husband. When Michael Crawford was tried for the assault, Sylvia did not testify against him under the state law of spousal privileges, but the prosecutor offered the tape recording into evidence. As we all now know, the United States Supreme Court determined in Crawford v. Washington[1] that the admission of the tape recording violated Michael Crawford’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court held that Sylvia’s “testimonial” statements,[2] derived from a police interrogation eliciting evidence for a criminal prosecution,[3] were inadmissible against the defendant when he had no opportunity to confront and cross examine her.

Click to read more ...