Hon. Deanell Reece Tacha (Ret.) joins JAMS after more than 20 years of distinguished service on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, including seven years as Chief Judge of that court. On her retirement from the federal judiciary in 2011, Judge Tacha was named Dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law.
Tacha has significant experience in higher education as both an administrator and professor of law. She has taught in the areas of property law, oil and gas and administrative law.
Tacha is known for her keen intellect, creative problem solving and ability to grasp issues quickly. She is praised as an effective collaborator with special attention to civility.
ADR Experience and Qualifications
Judge Tacha has extensive experience in the following areas:
- Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Governmental/Public Agency
- Indian Law
- Personal Injury/Torts
- Real Property
- Gaylor v. United States, 74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir. 1996) (analyzing whether use of “In God We Trust” violated the Establishment Clause).
- Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that parody trading cards were protected by the First Amendment).
Due Process and Equal Protection Claims:
- Watson v. City of Kansas City, 857 F.2d 690 (10th Cir. 1988) (creating standard for domestic violence victims to establish a viable Equal Protection Clause claim).
- Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2003) (determining that officers acted unconstitutionally by removing a child from its home without sufficient pre-removal procedures).
- Clemmons v. Bohannon, 956 F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (examining whether exposure to secondhand smoke constituted cruel and unusual punishment).
Excessive Force and Qualified Immunity:
- Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642 (10th Cir. 1988) (explaining that the qualified immunity analysis must consider a law enforcement officer’s state of mind when intent is an element of the alleged constitutional violation).
- Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2001) (addressing whether police officers’ use of force was unreasonable where the plaintiff argued that the officers voluntarily placed themselves in a dangerous situation).
- Universal Money Ctrs., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Telegraph Co., 22 F.3d 1527 (10th Cir. 1994) (explaining that “some actual confusion does not dictate a finding of likelihood of confusion” and examining whether several instances of actual confusion may, nonetheless, be de minimis and insufficient to support a trademark infringement claim).
- Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987) (explaining differences between parody and infringement and holding that “[a]n intent to parody is not an intent to confuse the public”).
- Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321 (10th Cir. 1999) (explaining that Title VII permits a company to hire any equally qualified candidate and the court is not to act as a “‘super-personnel department’ that second-guesses employers’ business judgments”).
- Notari v. Denver Water Dep’t, 971 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992) (adopting “background circumstances” test for reverse discrimination claims).
Class Action Litigation:
- Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 838 F.2d 451 (10th Cir. 1988) (determining that courts may use the same attorneys’ fees analysis under fee-shifting statutes and in common fund class action cases).
- N.M. Cattle Growers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (analyzing the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “economic impact” as a matter of first impression amongst circuit courts).
- Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding as matter of first impression that a viable claim under the Packers and Stockyard Act requires showing injury to competition).