Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Appellate deadlines (1)
- Arkansas Supreme Court (1)
- Arkansas courts (1)
- COVID (1)
- Case status (1)
-
- Class action (1)
- Consumer education (1)
- Consumers (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Diligence requirement (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Health (1)
- Home confinement (1)
- Incarceration (1)
- Ineffective counsel (1)
- Ineffective representation (1)
- Labeling (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Mass incarceration (1)
- Obesity (1)
- Order notice (1)
- Regulation (1)
- Rules of Appellate Procedure (1)
- Strickland standard (1)
- Tort law (1)
- Two-prong standard (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
Sentenced To Prison, Not To Death: Home Confinement During The Pandemic And Moving Beyond Covid-19, Sydney Mcconnell
Sentenced To Prison, Not To Death: Home Confinement During The Pandemic And Moving Beyond Covid-19, Sydney Mcconnell
Arkansas Law Review
A prison sentence should “not include incurring a great and unforeseen risk of severe illness or death.” But for the 2.3 million people housed in our nation’s prisons and jails during the COVID-19 (“COVID”) pandemic, their sentences have included just that. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Bureau of Prisons has transferred approximately 49,068 inmates to home confinement. The decision to expand home confinement is an important one. It is a step in the right direction to address another broader, and distinctly American, issue: mass incarceration. Lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have reached the consensus “that …
The Post-Conviction Claim That Unites Death Row, Emily Levy
The Post-Conviction Claim That Unites Death Row, Emily Levy
Arkansas Law Review
“. . . [D]eath-penalty cases are different from other criminal cases, due to the obvious finality of the punishment.” Thirty-one executions have taken place in Arkansas since 1990. In February of 2017, Arkansas, uniquely, sought to execute eight inmates in eleven days—the so-called “Arkansas Eight.” All of those death row inmates shared a common postconviction claim: Strickland. Prior to Strickland v. Washington, no Supreme Court jurisprudence made clear what constituted objectively sufficient defense representation pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. But that changed in 1984 when Strickland made clear that the Sixth Amendment included the right of effective assistance of counsel.
Diligence And Belated Appeals: Ark R. App P.-Civ. 4(B)(3) In Theory And Practice, Johnathan D. Horton
Diligence And Belated Appeals: Ark R. App P.-Civ. 4(B)(3) In Theory And Practice, Johnathan D. Horton
Arkansas Law Review
A series of Arkansas appellate decisions addresses a recurring issue—the entry of a final order without notice to one or more litigants. Appellate deadlines run from the date of entry of a final order, so the lack of notice typically results in the inability to perfect an appeal, as a party unaware of the entry of a final order is unlikely to timely perfect an appeal. This troublesome issue has arisen in Arkansas with sufficient frequency to merit a specific provision in the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure—Civil.4 If a party can satisfy its requirements, Rule 4(b)(3) of the Arkansas …
A Healthy Diet Of Preemption: The Power Of The Fda And The Battle Over Restricting High Fructose Corn Syrup From Food And Beverages Labeled 'Natural', Adam C. Schlosser
A Healthy Diet Of Preemption: The Power Of The Fda And The Battle Over Restricting High Fructose Corn Syrup From Food And Beverages Labeled 'Natural', Adam C. Schlosser
Journal of Food Law & Policy
America is unhealthy. America faces an obesity epidemic. The food consumed by Americans is making them fat. Americans, bombarded every single day by negative headlines like these, are becoming more and more health conscious. This newfound commitment to health is reflected in the food and beverages Americans purchase.
Deceptively Simple: The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Margaret E. Rushing
Deceptively Simple: The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Margaret E. Rushing
Arkansas Law Review
In the 2017 legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly significantly changed the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”). These changes now prohibit private class actions under the ADTPA and require plaintiffs to prove additional elements of reliance and actual financial loss when bringing a claim. The changes appear to limit the ability of a consumer to bring a private action under the ADPTA. With these changes, Arkansas joins a minority of jurisdictions with deceptive trade practices acts that increase a plaintiff’s burden and restrict private class actions.