<?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>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:17:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<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>btittle</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>btittle</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>1</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>btittle</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>
		<item>
		<title>The Tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Remains Unrecognized</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/the-tort-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-remains-unrecognized.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/the-tort-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-remains-unrecognized.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dowty v. Riggs, 2010 Ark. 465 (2010)           On December 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held, yet again, that the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is not recognized as a cause of action in the state of Arkansas.  Although the controversial cause of action is accepted in the majority of jurisdictions, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/the-tort-of-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-remains-unrecognized.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exception to Landowner Immunity Explored for Recreational Visitors</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/exception-to-landowner-immunity-explored-for-recreational-visitors.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/exception-to-landowner-immunity-explored-for-recreational-visitors.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Carr v. Nance, 2010 Ark. 497 (2010)           The Supreme Court of Arkansas, on December 16, 2010, was faced with the challenge of analyzing the landowner immunity exception under the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute for malicious conduct and ultra-hazardous conditions in Carr v. Nance.  Generally, landowners in Arkansas experience a high level of immunity from liability [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/exception-to-landowner-immunity-explored-for-recreational-visitors.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expunged Guilty Pleas in other States may not Count for Arkansas’s First-Time Offender Statute</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/expunged-guilty-pleas-in-other-states-may-not-count-for-arkansas%e2%80%99s-first-time-offender-statute.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/expunged-guilty-pleas-in-other-states-may-not-count-for-arkansas%e2%80%99s-first-time-offender-statute.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Montoya v. State, 2010 Ark. 419 (2010)           On November 4, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court was met with an issue of first impression regarding Arkansas’s first-time offender statute in the context of prior expunged guilty pleas in other states.  The result of this ruling shed light on an area of criminal law crucial to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/expunged-guilty-pleas-in-other-states-may-not-count-for-arkansas%e2%80%99s-first-time-offender-statute.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analysis of Unemployment Benefits for Between Term Substitute Teachers</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/analysis-of-unemployment-benefits-for-between-terms-substitute-teachers.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/analysis-of-unemployment-benefits-for-between-terms-substitute-teachers.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Subteach USA v. Williams, 2010 Ark. 400 (2010)           In a recent Arkansas Supreme Court case decided on October 28th, it was held that substitute teachers who are not directly employed by an “educational institution” but by a private placement company are still disqualified from receiving between-terms (summer/winter break) unemployment benefits.            The appellee in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/analysis-of-unemployment-benefits-for-between-terms-substitute-teachers.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congress Should Enact Year-Round Daylight Saving Time</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/congress-should-enact-year-round-daylight-saving-time.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/congress-should-enact-year-round-daylight-saving-time.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Legal Experts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Prof. Dustin Buehler           Early Sunday morning, November 7, 2010, Americans once again will “fall back” to standard time.  The switch to and from daylight saving time irritates a chronically sleep-deprived nation.  Most Americans see no reason to engage in this semiannual clock-changing madness.  Many wish the annoying ritual would end.           And yet [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/congress-should-enact-year-round-daylight-saving-time.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2010 Symposium Informational Bulletin</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/arkansas-law-reviews-2010-symposium.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/arkansas-law-reviews-2010-symposium.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[University of Arkansas Law Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=566</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/arkansas-law-reviews-2010-symposium.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is There a Search Warrant Jurisdictional Requirement? Arkansas Supreme Court Says No</title>
		<link>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-search-warrant-jurisdictional-requirement-arkansas-supreme-court-says-no.html</link>
		<comments>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-search-warrant-jurisdictional-requirement-arkansas-supreme-court-says-no.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>btittle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arkansas Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/?p=552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wagner v. State, 2010 Ark. 289 (2010)           The Arkansas Supreme Court, in an issue of first impression, ruled that the jurisdiction of a “judicial officer” to issue a search warrant is not limited to the county in which he/she was elected. The issue arose with the adoption of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-17-929 and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawreview.law.uark.edu/is-there-a-search-warrant-jurisdictional-requirement-arkansas-supreme-court-says-no.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

