July 23, 2019

Archives for September 22, 2011

DU Honors Four Distinguished Alumni and Professors at Annual Law Stars

The University of Denver Sturm College of Law held its annual Law Stars gala last night in downtown Denver. Since 1993, DU has recognized its distinguished alumni and faculty for their achievements at the event, which includes the infamous individual commemorative videos. Each video recounts the personal and professional journey of each honoree. This year, famous faces like Bill Ritter and Chief Justice Bender popped up in humorous bits that mixed tribute with light-hearted roasting. No matter how ridiculous or satirical the content, absolutely no rebuttal is allowed.

This year’s awards recipients were:

Howard Kenison, JD’72, Outstanding Alumni Award:

Kenison chairs the Environment, Natural Resources, and Climate Change practice group at the Denver law firm Lindquist & Vennum. His environmental practice focuses on regulatory and litigation cases before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. He is the former Colorado Deputy Attorney General in charge of Colorado’s Superfund Litigation Section and a past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Environmental Law. He has been named to the Super Lawyers list three times, was the SCOL Distinguished Natural Resources Practitioner-in-Residence in 2010, and was named Law Week Colorado’s Attorney of the Year in 2009. He is recognized this year by the national peer-review publication Best Lawyers.

Video theme: It’s a Wonderful Life

Charles “Chuck” Goldberg, JD’64, Alumni Professionalism Award:

Goldberg is a partner with the law firm Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, where he has been since 1978. Prior to that, he worked in private practice for 10 years before being appointed (and re-elected) as a 34 year old judge with the Denver District Court. Goldberg represents plaintiffs and defendants in complex civil litigation, religious liberty issues, condemnations, professional liability actions, personal injury lawsuits, and probate disputes. He represents numerous religious organizations, colleges, and universities in litigation in Colorado and throughout the United States and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator. He is in his 11th year serving as chairman of the Colorado Supreme Court Board of Trustees of the Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection and in 2010 received the Civis Princeps Award from Regis College and the Benemerenti (“To a Well Deserving Person”) Medal, granted by Pope Benedict XVI. Goldberg has also been recognized by Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and Chambers USA for his excellent legal skills and outstanding service to clients.

Video theme: Wanting to grow up to be Santa Claus

Alan Chen, Robert B. Yegge Excellence in Teaching Award:

Chen has been with the SCOL since 1992, rising from assistant professor to professor and associate dean for faculty scholarship. A 1985 Stanford Law graduate, he is a nationally recognized expert in constitutional law, federal courts and civil rights litigation. He pursues research in a variety of fields, including federal remedies for civil rights violations, free speech doctrine and theory, and lawyering for social change. He has published numerous scholarly articles in national publications and serves on the University Strategic Planning for Research Task Force on Scholarship, and on the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Accreditation Steering Committee, & HLC Acquisition Discovery, and Application of Knowledge Working Group. For the academic year 2007-2008, he was named Outstanding Faculty Member by the SCOL Student Bar Association.

Video theme: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Chen

Terrance Carroll, JD’05, Bruce B. Johnson Outstanding Young Alumni Award:

Carroll is a former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. He has been an attorney with the Greenberg Traurig law firm since December 2007. He provides strategic counsel and advice to help clients achieve their business objectives in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. He also represents clients in a range of issues related to election and campaign finance regulations. He was named one of 2010’s 50 Most Influential People in Denver by 5280 magazine; received the Power Book Industry Leader Award in Law from the Denver Business Journal in 2009; received the People’s Choice award as Best Lawyer Turned Legislator in the 2009 Barrister’s Best list for Law Week Colorado; and was named by Law Week Colorado as one of the Lawyers of the Year in 2008. He is an also an adjunct professor at the Sturm College of Law teaching Legislative Process.

Video theme: Always talking and needing an audience wherever he goes

Click here for more information about the DU Law Stars.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Week of September 18, 2011 (No Published Opinions)

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and twenty-three unpublished opinions for the week of September 18, 2011.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.

United States District Court for Colorado Requests Quotes for Converting Thousands of Records into Electronic Formats

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado is seeking price quotes to convert many types of printed records into electronic formats.

1. Naturalization Records

The clerk’s office currently maintains information on approximately 63,600 citizens who were naturalized from the late 1800s through 1991 on index cards and microfiche.

The index cards have three different formats that include similar information, such as name, previous name, address, certificate number, alien registration/INS number, birth date, country of birth, date/ port of arrival, and date of naturalization. Two formats have a front and a back. Information on the back typically includes the previous name, if any.

The clerk’s office also has one sheet of microfiche with records from 1989 – 1991. Data for each record consists of name, previous name, petition number, certificate number, admission date, registration number, petition date, date of birth, city, and state.

The Court would like a quote to convert the data into the formats listed below, with one format ultimately being selected for the project. Price quotes should be given for different levels of accuracy between 90-95%. The two electronic formats are:

  • Electronic Format
    • Convert the following information from each card and sheet of microfiche into an electronic format, such as Comma Delimited or Excel, with the following fields:
      • First name, last name, middle initial, previous name, street address, city, state, birth date, certificate number, petition number, alien registration/INS number, country of birth, date port of arrival, port of arrival and date of naturalization.
  • PDF Format with Index
    • Scan each index card into a PDF image (min. 300 dpi) and create an electronic index of each card by name (first, last) in a Comma Delimited or Excel format. A PDF image may consist of more than one index card. The quote should include two prices: one for imaging the front of the card only and one for imaging the front and back of the card for cards with informaiotn on both sides which is estimated to be 20% of the total.
2. Party Name Index Cards/Attorney Admission Cards

There are approximately 269,083 index cards from 1920-1987 that contain party name identification or attorney admission records. There are several types of cards; each is a different color and represents different party information. Each index card has the following information: last name, first name, case number, filing date, and name of opposing party. The cards may also include alias’ and AKAs. The attorney admission cards in this group include last name, first name, date admitted to practice, and the name of the sponsoring attorney.

The Court would like a quote to convert the data into an electronic format, such as Comma Delimited or Excel, with the following fields:

  • Card color (blue, yellow, pink, green, or brown), last name, first name, middle initial, alias’ and AKAs, company name, case number, filing date, name of opposing party, date admitted to practice (brown cards only), and the name of the sponsoring attorney (brown cards only).

Price quotes should be given for different levels of accuracy between 90-95%.

3. Attorney Admission Index Cards

There are approximately 12,300 index cards that contain attorney admission records. Each index card has the following information: last name, first name, middle name, business address, city, state, zip business phone, home address, city, state, zip home phone, admitted on the motion of, and admittance date.

The Court would like a quote to convert the data into an electronic format, such as Comma Delimited or Excel, with fields corresponding to the above information. Price quotes should be given for different levels of accuracy between 90-95%.

All quotes should be submitted by September 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm.

Click here for more information. And click here to read the Court’s Scope of Work document, which includes examples of what each type of card or record looks like.

Contact the following persons for more information about the project:

Colorado Supreme Court Amends Two Probate Forms

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Appendix A (Colorado Probate Code Forms) to Chapter 27 of the Colorado Court Rules. The rule change required two probate forms to be revised, and the new forms have been provided by State Judicial. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately. The amended forms are:


  • JDF 800 – “Acknowledgment of Responsibilities Conservator and/or Guardian” (revised 9/11)
  • JDF 810 – “Court Visitor’s Report” (revised 9/11)

Currently, the forms are only available in Microsoft Word format. PDF and Word template formats are forthcoming and will be posted by State Judicial when available.

Click here to read the full release, Rule Change 2011(11), about these changes to the Probate Code Forms by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Tenth Circuit: Dismissal of First Habeas Petition as Time-Barred was a Decision on the Merits; A Claim Presented in a Previous Habeas Petition Must Be Dismissed

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Rains on Wednesday, September 21, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit denied authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. Petitioner pleaded guilty in Oklahoma state court to making a telephone bomb threat, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and robbery. He was sentenced to ten, twenty, and twenty years of imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. He filed his first habeas petition in federal district court in 2007, “asserting that (1) his sentence was excessive because he was eighteen years old at the time of the offenses, he was a first-time offender, and the victims were uninjured; (2) his robbery sentences were illegal; (3) his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was not told he would need to serve at least 85% of the sentence for robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (4) his counsel was ineffective for coercing him to plead guilty, failing to inform him that he would serve 85% of the robbery-with-a-dangerous-weapon sentence, and inadequately negotiating the plea. The court dismissed the petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).” Petitioner did not appeal.

In 2008, he filed another habeas petition, “re-asserting the first, third, and fourth claims. The district court decided this filing was an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition. Declining to transfer it to [the Tenth Circuit], the district court instead dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Petitioner again did not appeal. Petitioner now seeks authorization to assert all four claims in a second or successive habeas petition. “Under AEDPA, a claim presented in a previous § 2254 petition must be dismissed. . . . The dismissal of [Petitioner]’s first habeas petition as time-barred was a decision on the merits, and any later habeas petition challenging the same conviction is second or successive and is subject to the AEDPA requirements.” The Court therefore denied authorization. The denial of authorization is also not appealable and cannot not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 9/21/11

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.


United States v. Pinon-Ayon

Abbott v. Mulligan

Pinkey v. Zavislan

Bishop v. Franklin

Roth v. Green

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

The America Invents Act – A Discussion of the Recent Significant Changes in U.S. Patent Law

Co-Sponsored by the CBA Intellectual Property Section

The America Invents Act, which was signed into law by the president last week, is the first major overhaul of our nation’s patent law in almost 50 years. Among its many significant provisions, the Act will change the United States patent system from “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file,” aligning the United States with the international standard. New procedures will be also established for third-party challenges to patent and applications, and changes will be made regarding who can file, when they can file, and what prior art can be used against them.

Other provisions of the Act affect hot-topic issues, like false marking cases, business method and tax strategy patents, and joinder of unrelated parties by so-called trolls. These and other changes raise a host of questions for IP attorneys and their clients.  When and how should clients disclose their inventions?  How should clients think about the new options for challenging their competitors’ patents?  What tactics can clients use in anticipation of future derivation or post-grant proceedings?

A post by David Donoghue, patent attorney and Rocky Mountain IP Institute faculty member, reveals a few key elements of the legislation, but we invite you to learn everything you need to know about the fundamental changes to Intellectual Property and Patent Law at our CLE event on October 5, The America Invents Act – A Discussion of the Significant Changes in US Patent Law. Be the best advocate for your client by attending and making sure you know all the ins and outs of the new legislation.

CLE Program: The America Invents Act – A Discussion of the Significant Changes in US Patent Law

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, October 5. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.