<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Arkansas Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:53:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Damages—Eighth Circuit Upholds Statutory Damages Award of $220,000 Against Individual Found Liable for Online File-Sharing</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/damages-eighth-circuit-upholds-statutory-damages-award-of-220000-against-individual-found-liable-for-online-file-sharing.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/damages-eighth-circuit-upholds-statutory-damages-award-of-220000-against-individual-found-liable-for-online-file-sharing.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=915</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a statutory damages award for $220,000 against an individual found liable for online file-sharing. Following a lengthy investigation into Internet piracy, Capitol Records and various other recording companies sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset, an individual living in Duluth, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/damages-eighth-circuit-upholds-statutory-damages-award-of-220000-against-individual-found-liable-for-online-file-sharing.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Election Law—Ballot Title and Popular Name of the &#8220;Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act&#8221; Approved as Sufficiently Intelligible, Honest, and Impartial</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/election-law-ballot-title-and-popular-name-of-the-arkansas-medical-marijuana-act-approved-as-sufficiently-intelligible-honest-and-impartial.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/election-law-ballot-title-and-popular-name-of-the-arkansas-medical-marijuana-act-approved-as-sufficiently-intelligible-honest-and-impartial.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=913</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cox v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 352, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept. 27, 2012). The Arkansas Supreme Court recently upheld both the ballot title and popular name for the &#8220;Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act&#8221; as sufficiently intelligible, honest, and impartial. This controversy began soon after the Arkansans for Compassionate Care (&#8220;ACC&#8221;) sought certification for a ballot measure authorizing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/election-law-ballot-title-and-popular-name-of-the-arkansas-medical-marijuana-act-approved-as-sufficiently-intelligible-honest-and-impartial.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal Procedure—Prosecutors Free to Argue Contradictory Theories Against Co-defendants When the First Defendant&#8217;s Conviction Has Been Reversed</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/criminal-procedure-prosecutors-free-to-argue-contradictory-theories-against-co-defendants-when-the-first-defendants-conviction-has-been-reversed.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/criminal-procedure-prosecutors-free-to-argue-contradictory-theories-against-co-defendants-when-the-first-defendants-conviction-has-been-reversed.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 347, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept. 27, 2012). The Arkansas Supreme Court recently held that prosecutors may rely on contradictory theories against co-defendants, without running afoul of the Due Process Clause, if the first defendant&#8217;s conviction has been reversed. In 2003, Chad Green and his father, Billy Wayne, were charged with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/criminal-procedure-prosecutors-free-to-argue-contradictory-theories-against-co-defendants-when-the-first-defendants-conviction-has-been-reversed.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Capital Punishment—Method of Execution Act Invalidated as Unconstitutional Delegation of Legislative Power</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/capital-punishment-method-of-execution-act-invalidated-as-unconstitutional-delegation-of-legislative-power.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/capital-punishment-method-of-execution-act-invalidated-as-unconstitutional-delegation-of-legislative-power.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 22, 2012). The Arkansas Supreme Court recently held that the Method of Execution Act (&#8220;MEA&#8221;) is unconstitutional, as an improper delegation of legislative power. In 2009, the Arkansas General Assembly passed the MEA. In relevant part, the MEA delegated to the Director of the Arkansas [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/capital-punishment-method-of-execution-act-invalidated-as-unconstitutional-delegation-of-legislative-power.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Torts—Claim for Invasion of Privacy Does Not Survive Decedent&#8217;s Death</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/torts-claim-for-invasion-of-privacy-does-not-survive-decedents-death.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/torts-claim-for-invasion-of-privacy-does-not-survive-decedents-death.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Ctr., 2012 Ark. 369, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Oct. 4, 2012). The Arkansas Supreme Court recently held that the State&#8217;s survival statute does not apply to a decedent&#8217;s claim for intrusion, an actionable tort related to the invasion of privacy. In October 2008, Anne Pressly, a news anchor for KATV [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/torts-claim-for-invasion-of-privacy-does-not-survive-decedents-death.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Law—Presumption That Natural, Fit Parents Act in the Best Interests of Their Children Survives Consensual Guardianship and Must Be Accounted for During Termination Proceedings</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/family-law-presumption-that-natural-fit-parents-act-in-the-best-interests-of-their-children-survives-consensual-guardianship-and-must-be-accounted-for-during-termination-proceedings.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/family-law-presumption-that-natural-fit-parents-act-in-the-best-interests-of-their-children-survives-consensual-guardianship-and-must-be-accounted-for-during-termination-proceedings.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re S.H., 2012 Ark. 245, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 31, 2012). The Arkansas Supreme Court recently held that the presumption that natural, fit parents act in the best interests of their children survives consent to a guardianship and must be accounted for during guardianship-termination proceedings. On August 19, 2008, Donna and Larry Herrington filed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/family-law-presumption-that-natural-fit-parents-act-in-the-best-interests-of-their-children-survives-consensual-guardianship-and-must-be-accounted-for-during-termination-proceedings.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitation on Punitive Damages Struck Down as Unconstitutional by Arkansas Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/limitation-on-punitive-damages-struck-down-as-unconstitutional-by-arkansas-supreme-court.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/limitation-on-punitive-damages-struck-down-as-unconstitutional-by-arkansas-supreme-court.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Tort Reform Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#160; By:  Rachel A. Orr, Research Editor        Arkansas Law Review Bayer Cropscience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Dec. 8, 2011). The Arkansas Supreme Court found the General Assembly exceeded its authority under article 5, section 32 of the Arkansas Constitution by limiting recoverable punitive damages in the Arkansas Tort Reform [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/limitation-on-punitive-damages-struck-down-as-unconstitutional-by-arkansas-supreme-court.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is There a Dark Side to Green?</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-dark-side-to-green.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-dark-side-to-green.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Legal Experts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[           By Professor Carl J. Circo                     A green building is environmentally sustainable.  That is, it meets the needs of the project’s owners and occupants in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment.  A green building is more sustainable than a conventional building because it conserves more energy, consumes fewer resources, emits lower levels [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-dark-side-to-green.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do Parties in a Class-Action Settlement Agreement have Standing? Supreme Court of Arkansas Says Yes</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/do-parties-in-a-class-action-settlement-agreement-have-standing-supreme-court-of-arkansas-says-yes.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/do-parties-in-a-class-action-settlement-agreement-have-standing-supreme-court-of-arkansas-says-yes.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hunter v. Runyan, 2011 Ark. 45 (2011)           An issue of first impression arose on February 9, 2011, when the Supreme Court of Arkansas was met with the challenge of determining whether subject matter jurisdiction existed between parties in a class-action settlement as the case was no longer adversarial in nature.  Because it is well settled [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/do-parties-in-a-class-action-settlement-agreement-have-standing-supreme-court-of-arkansas-says-yes.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clarifying Statutes Regarding Regulations for Fire and Police Departments: When Does the City Board of Directors Need to Adopt the Rule</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/clarifying-statutes-regarding-rules-for-fire-and-police-departments-when-does-the-city-board-of-directors-need-to-adopt.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/clarifying-statutes-regarding-rules-for-fire-and-police-departments-when-does-the-city-board-of-directors-need-to-adopt.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lawreview</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawrence v. City of Texarkana, 2011 Ark. 42 (2011)           The Supreme Court of Arkansas delivered an opinion on February 9, 2011 that clarified the interpretation of two important statutes for fire and police departments. The opinion analyzed when fire and police departments may terminate an employee for impermissible conduct that violates a regulation not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/clarifying-statutes-regarding-rules-for-fire-and-police-departments-when-does-the-city-board-of-directors-need-to-adopt.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
