Law Commons^™

Preliminary Injunctions In Public Law: The Merits, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The law of preliminary injunctions has been evolving, in many instances away from its roots in equity and towards a more rigid and formalistic approach that raises the bar for when a preliminary injunction may be granted. This change has its roots in hostility at the Supreme Court to certain types of rights, such as abortion, voting rights, public health, and environmental protection, to name a few. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a few circuits have adopted a strict, literal reading of some dicta from that case in order …

The Lock-In Effect Of Preliminary Injunctions, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Judges suffer from the same cognitive biases that afflict the rest of us. Judges use shortcuts to help them deal with the uncertainty and time pressure inherent in the judicial process. Judges should be aware of the conditions when those shortcuts lead to systemic biases in decision-making, and adjust legal standards in order to reduce or avoid such bias altogether.

One important bias that has been identified by economists and psychologists is the lock-in effect. The lock-in effect causes a decision-maker who must revisit an earlier decision to be locked-in to the earlier decision. The effect is particularly pronounced where …

When Staying Discovery Stays Justice: Analyzing Motions To Stay Discovery When A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending, Kevin J. Lynch

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Due to the important costs and benefits of discovery, decisions that affect the scope, timing, or availability of discovery are enormously consequential. For civil litigation in federal court, district and magistrate judges make many decisions about discovery that affect the cases before them. They decide the length and number of depositions that may be taken, compel or protect against the production of large numbers of documents and electronic data searches, serve as gatekeepers for expert witness testimony, and even decide whether the parties may take discovery at all until any motions to dismiss have been resolved. This Article focuses squarely …

E-Discovery's Threat To Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 For The Digital Age, Robert M. Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger, Andrea Defield

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even though they were amended in 2006 specifically to address the costs and scale of ediscovery, not only fail to contain the cost or scope of discovery, but, in fact, encourage expensive litigation ancillary to the merits of civil litigants' cases. This Article proposes that the solution to this dilemma is to eliminate the presumption that the producing party should pay for the cost of discovery. This rule should be abandoned in favor of a rule that would equally distribute the costs of discovery between the requesting and producing parties.

Introduction To The Online Colorado Litigator's Handbook, Robert S. Anderson

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

The Litigator's Handbook includes surveys of district court judges throughout the state with detailed questions of each judge's preferences and proscriptions for practice and procedure; answers to some questions that attorneys want to know but may be afraid to ask; and commentary that indicates the court's general level of receptiveness to particular types of requests.

1985 Civil Rule Amendments, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Effective January 1, 1985, significant amendments were made to several of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure ("C.R.C.P."). The most important amendments were to C.R.C.P. Rules 59 (posttrial) motions) and 103 (garnishment).' However, there were also significant amendments to C.R.C.P. Rules 58 (entry of judgment), 52 (findings by the court), 50 (motion for directed verdict), and 6 (time), as well as Colorado Appellate Rules ("C.A.R.") Rule 4 (appeals).

Collateral Estoppel - A Colorado Primer, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Perhaps no legal doctrine has been the source of so much confusion and misunderstanding as collateral estoppel. This is unfortunate since issues involving collateral estoppel arise in a large number of cases, and when properly raised are often determinative of the entire case. For the practicing attorney, it is just as important to know how to defend against an adversary's use of collateral estoppel as it is to know when and how to raise this doctrine offensively.

Student Practice In Colorado, Robert M. Hardaway

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Both the University of Denver College of Law and the University of Colorado Law School have active student law clinics. Law students in these clinics receive academic credit for representing indigent clients under the supervision of a faculty member or staff attorney. Students in the two clinics are permitted to practice in the Colorado courts pursuant to one of the nation's most liberal student practice rules.