Legal Connection Blog Updates http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39420 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/eWL4Aomtfkw/ Case Law 10th Circuit business law car rental litigation motor vehicle law personal injury law tort law Tenth Circuit: Age of Rental Car Driver Inconclusive to Support Tort Claims Against Rental Company The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Amparan v. Lake Powell Car Rental Companies</em> on February 13, 2018. Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:58:29 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-age-of-rental-car-driver-inconclusive-to-support-tort-claims-against-rental-company/#respond DU Law Student <div class="pf-content"><p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2094.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Amparan v. Lake Powell Car Rental Companies</em></a> on February 13, 2018.</p> <p>Edmundo and Kimberly L. Amparan appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell Car Rental Companies on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium. The claims arose from a vehicle accident involving a motorcycle operated by Mr. Amparan and a Ford Mustang rented by Lake Powell to Denizcan Karadeniz and operated by Mevlut Berkay Demir. Because the Amparans failed to come forward with evidence from which the jury could find an essential element of their claim for negligent entrustment, the appeals court affirmed.</p> <p>On July 14, 2014, a group of Turkish nationals, including Mr. Karadeniz, visited Lake Powell to rent two vehicles. Mr. Karadeniz produced a valid Turkish driver’s license and a valid credit card. Mert Tacir, another member of the group, produced a valid Turkish driver’s license. The owner and operator of Lake Powell, Paul Williams, asked the remaining individuals in the group if they possessed valid driver’s licenses. Mr. Demir responded that he possessed a valid driver’s license. At the time of the rental, all three individuals were 21 years old. Although Mr. Williams recognized that Mr. Karadeniz and Mr. Tacir were under the age of 25, he nonetheless agreed to rent to rent a Dodge Caravan and a Ford Mustang to Mr. Karadeniz and to permit Mr. Tacir as an additional authorized driver for the Ford Mustang. None of the other members of the group, including Mr. Demir, completed an “Additional Driver Application/Agreement.” However, Mr. Demir testified that he understood Mr. Williams’ inquiry into whether he possessed a driver’s license as a signaling that he had Lake Powell’s implicit permission to operate the vehicles. Because a reasonable jury could adopt Mr. Demir’s understanding, the Tenth Circuit proceeded under the assumption that Lake Powell implicitly entrusted the rental vehicles to Mr. Demir. Evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Mr. Williams’ decision to rent two vehicles to an individual under the age of 25 and to permit an additional driver under the age of 25 violates internal policies propagated by Lake Powell’s licensor, Avis Rent A Car Systems, LLC.</p> <p>During the course of the rental, Mr. Demir operated the Ford Mustang. Mr. Demir, unfamiliar with the traffic rules governing left turns at intersections, turned left on a solid green light without yielding to oncoming traffic. Mr. Amparan, traveling in the oncoming direction, unsuccessfully attempted to swerve to avoid hitting the turning vehicle operated by Mr. Demir and the two vehicles collided. As a result of the collision, Mr. Amparan alleges he suffered multiple broken bones, a punctured lung, and various other injuries.</p> <p>The Amparans filed complaint in New Mexico state court, naming Mr. Demir, Mr. Karadeniz, and Avis as defendants. Avis removed the action to federal court, where, after an initial round of discovery, the district court granted the Amparans leave to amend their complaint to add Lake Powell as a defendant. The amended complaint raised claims against Lake Powell for negligent entrustment, loss of consortium, and negligent supervision and training. Lake Powell moved for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that even if it implicitly entrusted the Mustang to Mr. Demir, it neither knew nor should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In response to Lake Powell’s motion for summary judgment, the Amparans filed a notice of testifying expert on both the risk posed by young drivers and standards of care in the car rental industry. The Amparans also contested Lake Powell’s motion for summary judgment, arguing in part that Lake Powell’s violation of internal policies regarding renting to, or approving as additional drivers, individuals under age 25 constituted sufficient evidence to permit the finding that Lake Powell knew or should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the Ford Mustang in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.</p> <p>The district court indicated it would not consider factual assertions in the Amparans’ response to summary judgment that did not comply with District of New Mexico Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A). The district court denied Lake Powell’s motion to strike as moot. The district court deemed the motions to strike moot based on its conclusion that the Amparans’ evidence regarding Lake Powell’s alleged violation of internal policies was insufficient, on its own, to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Lake Powell knew or should have known that Mr. Demir was likely to operate the Mustang in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The district court concluded that the disputes of fact with respect to whether Lake Powell entrusted the Mustang to Mr. Demir and whether Lake Powell violated any internal policies were not material because resolution of the disputes in favor of the Amparans did not alter the summary judgment decision.</p> <p>On appeal, the Amparans argued that the district court failed to perform a proper analysis, in that a New Mexico court would view evidence of a violation of internal policies, which are also allegedly industry standards, sufficient to advance a claim for negligent entrustment. Alternatively, the Amparans urged the Tenth Circuit to address the merits of Lake Powell’s motions to strike. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium.</p> <p>In an effort to overcome the extensive body of case law supporting the conclusion that the New Mexico Supreme Court would reject the proposition that evidence of a car rental company’s violation of internal policies is sufficient to establish the third element of a claim for negligent entrustment even where the entrustee possesses a valid driver’s license, the Amparans argued that their expert witness would testify on car rental industry standards regarding rentals to individuals under age 25. But the fact that evidence of a violation of an internal policy is probative on the question of negligence does not establish that the evidence is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence. It cannot be said that the driver’s young age, on its own, makes it likely that the driver will cause an accident, will operate the vehicle in an incompetent manner, or will operate the vehicle in such a manner as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. For, if such were true, no individual in New Mexico could grant a person under the age of 25 permission to drive a vehicle without facing liability for negligent entrustment based solely on the entrustee’s youthful age.</p> <p>Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit held that the New Mexico Supreme Court would conclude that evidence of a car rental company’s violation of internal policies on the minimum age of renters and drivers is, on its own, insufficient to establish the third element of a claim for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle. Thus, the Amparans failed to advance sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of negligent entrustment.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lake Powell on the Amparans’ claims for negligent entrustment and loss of consortium.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/eWL4Aomtfkw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-age-of-rental-car-driver-inconclusive-to-support-tort-claims-against-rental-company/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-age-of-rental-car-driver-inconclusive-to-support-tort-claims-against-rental-company/ 2018-10-22 15:58 +00:00 2018-10-22 09:58 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39844 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/6N9_PsQVKBQ/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/19/2018 On Friday, October 19, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions. Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:57:31 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-19-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Friday, October 19, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3027.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Strong v. Hrabe</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2003.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Gonzalez-Avalos</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-4048.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Jensen v. Garden</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5028.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Praytor v. Commissioner, SSA</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/6N9_PsQVKBQ" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-19-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-19-2018/ 2018-10-22 15:57 +00:00 2018-10-22 09:57 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39424 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/HZMmrzouVVo/ Case Law 10th Circuit arraignment criminal law Speedy Trial Tenth Circuit: Under New Mexico State Law, Defendants Were Responsible for Timeliness of Arraignments The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <em>Moya v. Garcia</em> on Tuesday, April 24, 2018. Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:47:13 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-under-new-mexico-state-law-defendants-were-responsible-for-timeliness-of-arraignments/#respond DU Law Student <div class="pf-content"><p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2037.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Moya v. Garcia</em></a> on Tuesday, April 24, 2018.</p> <p>On August 27, 2014, a bench warrant was issued for Mr. Moya after he failed to appear for his scheduled arraignment. He was subsequently arrested on the outstanding bench warrant and booked into the Santa Fe County Adult Correctional Facility (SFCACF) on September 15, 2014. Mr. Moya was not brought before the district court for an arraignment until November 17, 2014—63 days after he was detained.</p> <p>On July 21, 2015, a bench warrant was issued for Mr. Petry after he failed to appear for his scheduled arraignment. He was arrested the following day on unrelated charges and booked into the SFCACF. On July 27, 2015, shortly before he was to be released on the unrelated charges, Mr. Petry was served with the July 21 bench warrant and further detained by SFCACF. Mr. Petry was not brought before the district court for an arraignment until August 21, 2015—30 days after he was first detained.</p> <p>These arraignments were in violation of New Mexico’s Rules of Criminal Procedure, which entitles defendants to arraignment within 15 days following arrest. Under the belief that Santa Fe County and Santa Fe County officials had a systematic policy and practice of failing to take action that would ensure detainees receive timely bail hearings as required by law, Mr. Moya and Mr. Petry filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging their unlawful detainment was a deprivation of due process.</p> <p>The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the complaint did not plausibly allege facts showing the sheriff or wardens had been personally involved in the untimely arraignments, either through their own participation or supervisory control. The district court also denied plaintiffs’ request to amend, reasoning that as the individual defendants’ were entitled to qualified immunity, any amendment would be futile.</p> <p>On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the sheriff and wardens were responsible for the delays in the arraignments under the theory of supervisory liability. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that the sheriff and wardens were not the cause of the arraignment delays. After their arrests, jail officials notified the court that Mr. Moya and Mr. Petry were in custody. Once the court had been notified, it became the exclusive responsibility of the court to comply with the fifteen-day arraignment requirement—only the state trial court has the power to schedule arraignments. In further support of its conclusion that jail officials had not caused the arraignment delays, the Tenth Circuit brought attention to the fact that the plaintiffs had not alleged a failure by the defendants to tell the court of the arrests in a sufficient time to conduct the arraignment within the requisite fifteen days. There simply was no alleged conduct of the defendants that had prevented the court from scheduling the arraignments.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit next examined whether the defendants had any duty to ensure arraignments are timely scheduled. In the Tenth Circuit, the determination of the scope of defendant’s responsibility to ensure prompt hearings correctly focuses on state law. New Mexico law imposes no duty on the sheriff or warden to bring an arrestee to court in the absence of a scheduled arraignment. Further, the plaintiffs presented no authority that would provide guidance on what the sheriffs and wardens could have done to ensure timely court proceedings and avoid the due process violations, short of reminding the court of the court’s own failure to schedule an arraignment. But the Tenth Circuit reasoned that even with such a reminder, the arraignments could still only be scheduled by the court. Because the sheriff and wardens had no power to schedule the arraignments, the sheriff and wardens had no power to prevent or cure the alleged constitutional violations.</p> <p>The dissent argued that the majority wrongly focused only on the arraignment and overlooked the detention. The dissent agreed that the sheriff and wardens were powerless to cause timely arraignments as the arraignments could only be schedule by the court, but theorized that the jail officials could have simply released Mr. Moya and Mr. Petry. The majority countered, stating that the plaintiffs had expressly disavowed this theory and had therefore waived any reliance on such theory as a basis for reversal. The majority noted than even if the issue was raised, under New Mexico law jailers commit a misdemeanor and must be removed from office if they deliberately release a prisoner absent a court order. Even in this scenario, the Tenth Circuit opined that the dismissal of the § 1983 action should be affirmed because the state law required detention absent a court order and the plaintiffs had not challenged the constitutionality of the law.</p> <p>In addressing the plaintiffs’ claims against the county for failing to adopt a policy that would ensure timely arraignments, the Tenth Circuit found that as the sheriff and wardens did not cause the arraignment delays, the county could not incur liability under §1983 on the basis of the alleged inaction of the sheriff and wardens.</p> <p>The issue of whether Mr. Moya and Mr. Petry had adequately alleged a deprivation of due process was not reached.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit also found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, as the plaintiffs had failed to explain how they could have cured the deficiencies in the complaint identified by the district court.</p> <p>The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a valid claim.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/HZMmrzouVVo" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-under-new-mexico-state-law-defendants-were-responsible-for-timeliness-of-arraignments/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-under-new-mexico-state-law-defendants-were-responsible-for-timeliness-of-arraignments/ 2018-10-19 14:47 +00:00 2018-10-19 08:47 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39833 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/tDds76XqBuw/ Case Law Colorado Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 10/18/2018 On Thursday, October 18, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and 27 unpublished opinions. Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:43:15 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-10-18-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, October 18, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and 27 unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/17CA1502-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/17CA1504-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Garrett v. Credit Bureau of Carbon County</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2018/17CA2064-PD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Hernandez v. City &amp; County of Denver</em></a></p> <p>Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.</p> <p>Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Case_Announcements/Files/2018/63139910-18-18%20.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">available here</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/tDds76XqBuw" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-10-18-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-court-of-appeals-announcement-sheet-10-18-2018/ 2018-10-19 14:43 +00:00 2018-10-19 08:43 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39840 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/b88OSokGv-4/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/18/2018 On Thursday, October 18, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and nine unpublished opinions. Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:33:11 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-18-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Thursday, October 18, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and nine unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1318.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Nanda v. Phillips 66 Co.</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1028.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Palmer v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Technology Risk Office</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3324.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Banks</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1370.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Lopez</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3112.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Hall v. State Farm Insurance</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2216.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Webb v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3313.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Thompson</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-5084.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Mills v. Allbaugh</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-1278.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Thomas</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/b88OSokGv-4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-18-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-18-2018/ 2018-10-19 14:33 +00:00 2018-10-19 08:33 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39836 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/ooW21vgoNx4/ Job Satisfaction career transition economics inspiration job satisfaction mental health Archeconomics I made up the term “archeconomics.” I’m using “arch” in the sense of “first principles” — e.g., as in “archetype.” An “arch” is the larger version of the smaller expressions of itself — e.g., not just a villain but an arch-villain, not just an angel but an archangel. Life goes big when an arch-something is at work: experience expands beyond circumstance, meaning magnifies, significance is exaggerated. Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:25:31 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/archeconomics/#respond Kevin Rhodes <div class="pf-content"><p><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/archeconomics/archangel/" rel="attachment wp-att-39837"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-39837" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/archangel.jpg" alt="" width="236" height="335" srcset="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/archangel.jpg 236w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/archangel-106x150.jpg 106w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/archangel-211x300.jpg 211w" sizes="(max-width: 236px) 100vw, 236px" /></a>I made up the term “archeconomics.” I’m using “arch” in the sense of “first principles” — <em>e.g</em>., as in “archetype.” An “arch” is the larger version of the smaller expressions of itself — <em>e.g</em>., not just a villain but an arch-villain, not just an angel but an archangel. Life goes big when an arch-something is at work: experience expands beyond circumstance, meaning magnifies, significance is exaggerated.</p> <p>Archeconomics is therefore the larger story behind economics.</p> <p>I ended last week’s post by referring to the larger story behind the rentier economy. As usually happens when I’m on a research trail, several commentaries have appeared in my various feeds lately that look beyond the usual opinionated mash of current events and instead address over-arching ideas and issues. All of them deal in one way or another with the current status and possible future of the liberal worldview — an arch-topic if there ever was one.</p> <p>The term “liberal” in this context doesn’t refer to <em>political</em> liberal vs. conservative, but rather to historical liberalism, which among other things gave us post-WWII neo-liberal economics. Mega-bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari describes this kind of liberalism in his latest book <em><a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2017/5-things-to-know-about-21-lessons/">21 Lessons for the 21st Century</a></em>:</p> <blockquote><p>In Western political discourse the term “liberal” is sometimes used today in a much narrower sense, to denote those who support specific causes such as gay marriage, gun control, and abortion rights. Yet most so-called conservatives also embrace the broad liberal worldview.</p> <p>The liberal story cherishes human liberty as its number one value. It argues that all authority ultimately stems from the free will of individual humans, as expressed in their feelings, desires, and choices. In politics, liberalism believes that the voter knows best. It therefore upholds democratic elections. In economics, liberalism maintains that the customer is always right. It therefore hails free-market principles. In personal matters, liberalism encourages people to listen to themselves, be true to themselves, and allow their hearts — as long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This personal freedom is enshrined in human rights.</p></blockquote> <p>If you read Harari’s books <em><a href="https://www.ynharari.com/book/sapiens/">Sapiens</a></em> and <em><a href="https://www.ynharari.com/book/homo-deus/">Homo Deus</a></em>. you have a sense of what you’ll find in <em>21 Lessons</em>, but I found it worth reading on its own terms. Two recent special magazine editions also take on the fate of liberalism: &#8220;<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/is-democracy-dying/">Is Democracy Dying?</a><em>”</em> from <em>The Atlantic </em>and<em> “</em><a href="https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/09/13/a-manifesto-for-renewing-liberalism?">A Manifesto for Renewing Liberalism</a>” from <em>The Economist. </em>The titles speak for themselves, and both are offered by publications with nearly two centuries of liberal editorial perspectives.</p> <p>Another historical liberal offering from a conservative political point of view is “<a href="http://time.com/5421576/donald-trump-trumpism/?">How Trumpism Will Outlast Trump</a>,” from <em>Time Magazine</em>. Here’s the article’s précis:</p> <blockquote><p>These intellectuals are committed to a new economic nationalism . . . They’re looking past Trump . . . to assert a fundamental truth: whatever you think of him, Donald Trump has shown a major failing in the way America’s political parties have been serving their constituents. The future of Trump’s revolution may depend on whether this young group can help fix the economy.</p></blockquote> <p>Finally, here’s a trio of offerings that invoke environmental economics — the impact of the global ecology on global economics being another archeconomics topic. The first is a <a href="http://ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">scientific study</a> published last week that predicted significant environmental degradation within a surprisingly short time. Second is an article about the study that wants to know “<a href="http://time.com/5418690/why-ignore-climate-change-warnings-un-report/?">Why We Keep Ignoring Even the Most Dire Climate Change Warnings</a>.” Third is last week’s announcement that the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/meet-the-winners-of-this-years-nobel-prize-for-economics/">winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics</a> is an environmental economist.</p> <p>Some or all of those titles should satisfy if you’re in the mood for some arch-reading.</p> <p>Next time, we’ll return to plain old economics, with a look at how the low income social strata is faring in all the dust-up over rentiers and economic inequality, robotcs and machine learning, and the sagging paycheck going to human labor.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div style="border: 1px solid #999999; background-color: #dadada;"> <p><em><a href="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/07/can-money-buy-happiness/photo-kevin-head-shot-thumbnail/" rel="attachment wp-att-37377"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-37377" src="http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="187" srcset="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail.jpg 150w, https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Photo-Kevin-Head-Shot-thumbnail-120x150.jpg 120w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /></a></em></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-rhodes-b171117/">Kevin Rhodes</a> studies and writes about economics in an effort to understand the world his kids are growing up in, which is also the world he’s growing old in. You might enjoy his latest LinkedIn Pulse article &#8220;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fame-monster-rockstars-rockstar-entrepreneurs-kevin-rhodes/">The Fame Monster: Rockstars And Rockstar Entrepreneurs</a>.&#8221;</p> </div> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/ooW21vgoNx4" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/archeconomics/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/archeconomics/ 2018-10-18 14:25 +00:00 2018-10-18 08:25 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39831 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/QwfcJMEAA3M/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/17/2018 On Wednesday, October 16, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions. Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:08:32 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-17-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Wednesday, October 17, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2056.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>CNSP, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe</em></a></p> <p><em><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-2138.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United States v. Sanchez-Rivas</a></em></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3247.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>In re Garcia: Davis v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc.</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/QwfcJMEAA3M" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-17-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-17-2018/ 2018-10-18 14:08 +00:00 2018-10-18 08:08 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39829 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/exLFhSuslic/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court criminal law drug-sniffing dog evidence interlocutory appeal probable cause suppression warrantless search Colorado Supreme Court: Totality of Circumstances, Including Drug Dog’s Alert, Provided Probable Cause for Car Search The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. Bailey</em> on Monday, October 15, 2018. Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:42:52 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-totality-of-circumstances-including-drug-dogs-alert-provided-probable-cause-for-car-search/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2018/18SA169.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. Bailey</em></a> on Monday, October 15, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Searches and Seizures—Probable Cause—Search Without Warrant—Odor Detection—Use of Dogs.</em></p> <p>In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considered whether the trial court erred in ruling that state troopers lacked probable cause to search defendant’s car when they placed Mason, a narcotics-detecting dog, inside the car to sniff around. The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including Mason’s alert to the odor of narcotics while sniffing the exterior of defendant’s car, provided the troopers with probable cause to search the car. The fact that Mason’s alert was not a final indication did not render it irrelevant to the troopers’ probable cause determination. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing evidence collected by the troopers during a subsequent hand search of the car.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/exLFhSuslic" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-totality-of-circumstances-including-drug-dogs-alert-provided-probable-cause-for-car-search/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-totality-of-circumstances-including-drug-dogs-alert-provided-probable-cause-for-car-search/ 2018-10-17 15:42 +00:00 2018-10-17 09:42 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39827 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/xwS7iZ5y9-Q/ Case Law Colorado Supreme Court criminal law jury instructions self-defense Colorado Supreme Court: Unique Facts of Case Permit Use of Self-Defense Instruction for Robbery of Taxi Services The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>People v. DeGreat</em> on Monday, October 15, 2018. Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:31:47 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-unique-facts-of-case-permit-use-of-self-defense-instruction-for-robbery-of-taxi-services/#respond CBA-CLE Staff <div class="pf-content"><p>The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in <a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2015/15SC754.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>People v. DeGreat</em></a> on Monday, October 15, 2018.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Self-Defense—Aggravated Robbery—Jury Instructions—Affirmative Defenses. </em></p> <p>This case required the supreme court to decide whether a division of the court of appeals erred in concluding that the statutory right to self-defense can apply to justify a defendant’s robbery of taxi cab services. On the unique facts presented, the court concluded that the division correctly determined that defendant was entitled to a self-defense instruction as to the aggravated robbery charge, although the court’s reasoning differed from that on which the division relied. The court concluded that defendant presented some credible evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the robbery of services that he allegedly committed was committed in self-defense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the division’s judgment, albeit based on different reasoning.</p></blockquote> <p><em>Summary provided courtesy of </em><a href="https://www.cobar.org/-em-Colorado-Lawyer-em" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado Lawyer</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/xwS7iZ5y9-Q" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-unique-facts-of-case-permit-use-of-self-defense-instruction-for-robbery-of-taxi-services/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/colorado-supreme-court-unique-facts-of-case-permit-use-of-self-defense-instruction-for-robbery-of-taxi-services/ 2018-10-17 15:31 +00:00 2018-10-17 09:31 -06:00 http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/?p=39825 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~3/xEiQl80Fpow/ Case Law 10th Circuit Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/16/2018 On Tuesday, October 16, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions. Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:26:47 Z https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-16-2018/#respond Susan Hoyt <div class="pf-content"><p>On Tuesday, October 16, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.</p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-4167.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Rahimi v. Sweat</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-8097.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Martinez</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3083.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>United States v. Foy</em></a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1270.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Lamar v. O&#8217;Dell</em></a></p> <p>Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are <a href="https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/10th-circuit/">summarized and provided by Legal Connection</a>.</p> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CBACLELegalConnection/~4/xEiQl80Fpow" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-16-2018/feed/ 0 https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/10/tenth-circuit-unpublished-opinions-10-16-2018/ 2018-10-17 15:26 +00:00 2018-10-17 09:26 -06:00