Source: http://denverlawreview.org/dlr-onlinearticle/?currentPage=31
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:50:29+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit upheld a lower court decision to grant summary judgment for the New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI) in a disability discrimination suit, finding that the plaintiff, Sarah Ellenberg, failed to make a prima facie case for her discrimination claims. Ellenberg v. New Mexico Military Institute, No. 08-2112 (10th Cir. Jul 10, 2009).
Can One Injure an Unborn Child?
In People v. Lage, the Colorado Court of Appeals was faced with one of the hottest topics in the current legal world: When is an unborn child injured in the womb considered a “person” or “child”? Defendant, speeding to evade a police officer, swerved into oncoming traffic and caused a head-on collision. The driver of the other vehicle was eight and one-half months pregnant. Although delivered alive through an emergency cesarean section, the infant died approximately one hour later due to the blunt force trauma from the collision.
In U.S. v. Brown, appellant William Brown was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. No. 08-8086, (10th Cir. Jun. 9, 2009). Brown argued that the arresting officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by pulling over his car without reasonable suspicion. The Tenth Circuit clarified the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions by holding that an officer is justified in conducting a traffic stop, and subsequently searching a vehicle, after observing certain suspicious behavior.
The Tenth Circuit refused to hold Salt Lake County employees liable under § 1983 for summoning police to a protest, even if the police improperly disbanded the protesters.
The fight between pit bull owners and the City of Denver still has not ended, and this time the dog-lovers made it all the way to the Tenth Circuit in their challenge. Diaz v. City and County of Denver, No. 08-1132 (10th Cir., May 27, 2009). Plaintiffs, three pit bull owners and former residents of Denver, brought constitutional challenges against the City’s pit bull ban, all of which the district court dismissed under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs claimed that the ordinance was void for vagueness and violated substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the vagueness claim but reversed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and remanded the case for the district court to hear argument on this claim.
In Douglas v. Workman, two Oklahoma inmates on death row were granted new trials due to prosecutorial indiscretion. Yancy Douglas and Paris Powell were both convicted of murdering a fourteen year old girl in 1993. Nos. 01-6094, 06-6091, 06-6093, 06-6102 (10th Cir. Mar. 27 2009). The district court granted Powell a new trial, but, after receiving the same evidence, denied Douglas a new trial. The Tenth Circuit, however, granted defendant Douglas the relief of a new trial under Brady v. Maryland despite the fact that he failed to meet the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B).
The Denver University Law Review’s recent issue on judicial accountability timely foreshadowed a highly anticipated Supreme Court decision regarding judicial elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company. At issue in Caperton is whether West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a political donor’s case violated the claimant’s due process rights.
In Nicholas v. Boyd , the Tenth Circuit declined to address whether investigative officials who “cover up” information can be liable for denial of access to the courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State, the Colorado Supreme Court recently addressed the applicability of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) with regard to school funding. TABOR is a state constitutional amendment (Article X) that limits the amount of tax revenue the state can collect in a given year. If revenues exceed the limits, the taxing entity must refund the excess money to taxpayers or seek voter permission to retain the surplus.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2244
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v.