Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
A-Void-Able Consequences: Void Sales & Subsequent Purchasers Under Arkansas’S Statutory Foreclosure Act, Hannah Hungate
A-Void-Able Consequences: Void Sales & Subsequent Purchasers Under Arkansas’S Statutory Foreclosure Act, Hannah Hungate
Arkansas Law Notes
This Comment explores Arkansas’s Statutory Foreclosure Act and addresses the question of whether there can be a “subsequent purchaser for value” when a foreclosure sale is void from the outset. After a review of the Act itself, distinction between void and voidable foreclosures of property, findings of other state courts, and proper application of the Act, the author urges the Arkansas Supreme Court to make a formal declaration finding that purchasers of property foreclosed upon in a void sale are not “subsequent purchasers for value” under the meaning of the statute.
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers
Arkansas Law Review
The United States Supreme Court upheld an Arkansas law regulating how pharmacies are reimbursed by pharmacy benefit managers. In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, a unanimous Court decided that Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2015, was not pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).