Tag Archives: Judge Harris Hartz

10th Circuit: Sentence of imprisonment is final judgment although restitution issues remain open

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on August 12, 2019

Michelle Paup was convicted in a jury trial in federal magistrate court of theft of government property of less than $1,000 for shoplifting at an exchange store on an air force base in Colorado. She appealed to the district court, … Continue reading →

Posted in Jurisdiction, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 10th Circuit: Sentence of imprisonment is final judgment although restitution issues remain open

New Mexico’s own Judge Harris Hartz on Justice Gorsuch

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on April 19, 2017

In this article by Zoe Tillman of Buzzfeed, Tenth Circuit Judge Harris Hartz of New Mexico discusses Justice Neil Gorsuch and defends his record.

Posted in Interview, News, Tenth Circuit, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court | Tagged , | Comments Off on New Mexico’s own Judge Harris Hartz on Justice Gorsuch

Tenth Circuit upholds rafting company’s liability waiver in wrongful death case

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on January 6, 2016

Sue Ann Apolinar signed up for a rafting trip on the Arkansas River in Colorado. Tragically, while her raft was passing through a rapid called Seidel’s Suck Hole, it capsized. Other passengers were pulled out, but Ms. Apolinar became stuck … Continue reading →

Posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Tenth Circuit upholds rafting company’s liability waiver in wrongful death case

10th Circuit: Appellant must actually explain how the trial court erred to win on appeal

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on April 30, 2015

“The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” So begin’s today’s opinion in Nixon v. City and County of Denver, in which the Tenth Circuit again had the unfortunate task … Continue reading →

Posted in Appellate Practice, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Tenth Circuit denies en banc review in Guarantee Clause case

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on July 23, 2014

Yesterday the Tenth Circuit voted to deny en banc review in Kerr v. Hickenlooper. Judges Hartz, Tymkovich, Holmes, and Gorsuch dissented. To recap, the Guarantee Clause is located in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, and provides … Continue reading →

Posted in News, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Tenth Circuit denies en banc review in Guarantee Clause case

Tenth Circuit rejects New Mexico’s view that unbalanced arbitration agreements are unenforceable

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on February 11, 2014

New Mexico’s appellate courts have held that arbitration agreements are unconscionable if they allow one party to bring its most likely claims in court, while requiring the other party to bring its most likely claims in arbitration. This view is reflected … Continue reading →

Posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Tenth Circuit rejects New Mexico’s view that unbalanced arbitration agreements are unenforceable

“Tenth Circuit Allows Foreclosure on Purchase-Money Resulting Trust”

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on June 10, 2013

Prof. Gerry W. Beyer of Texas Tech Law School has this post at the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog on the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Tingey (May 29, 2013). Judge Harris Hartz wrote the Court’s opinion.

Posted in News, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , | Comments Off on “Tenth Circuit Allows Foreclosure on Purchase-Money Resulting Trust”

10th Circuit holds that corporate entities likely can’t bring hostile work environment claims

by Emil J. Kiehne Posted on February 8, 2013

The Tenth Circuit held yesterday, in Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. Black, that an artificial entity likely cannot bring a hostile work environment claim under the Equal Protection Clause or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The plaintiff, Allstate Sweeping, LLC, was owned … Continue reading →

Posted in Opinions and Analysis, Tenth Circuit | Tagged , | Comments Off on 10th Circuit holds that corporate entities likely can’t bring hostile work environment claims