University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Arkansas at Little Rock: UALR Bowen Law RepositoryNot a member yet
1877 research outputs found
Sort by
Is Limited Remand Required If the District Court Admitted or Excluded Evidence Without a Daubert Analysis?
Get PDF
Constitutional Law—Fourth Amendment—State V. Allen: An Effective Alternative to Unconstitutional Safety Checks on the State’s Waters
Get PDFEquity Investor Tax Credits: Legislative Update
No full textCo-authors Joseph R. Bell, Michael M. Watts, and Jeff B. Woodmansee provide an overview of equity investor tax credits and offer a comprehensive legislative survey of states across the nation currently offering tax incentives to attract angel investment for entrepreneurs and start-up ventures
God and Guns: The Free Exercise of Religion Problems of Regulating Guns in Churches and Other Houses of Worship
Get PDFThis Article demonstrates that the cases raising religious liberty challenges to state regulation of weapons in houses of worship reveal the persistent problems plaguing religious liberty cases. First, these cases illustrate the difficulties non-mainstream religious claims face. Courts may not understand the religious nature of the claim or they may devalue claims that do not seem “normal” or “reasonable.” This is compounded by how few religious liberty claimants, especially non-mainstream religions, win their cases. Second, the cases are part of the larger debate about how easy it should be to get judicially imposed religious exemptions from general and neutral laws. Uncritically granting exemptions could undermine the statutory scheme and the rule of law. Too stingy an approach and religious freedom becomes an empty promise. Third, the cases show the problems with a neutral approach. Neutrality is often held out as the appropriate touchstone for religious liberty analysis. Finding a neutral standpoint, however, is difficult, if not impossible, especially when dealing with religion. This difficulty forces courts to find “neutrality” by silently relying on their background assumptions about religion, which only exacerbates the problems of non-mainstream claimants. These three difficulties have relevance to the current litigation concerning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
This Article concludes that these persistent problems flow from the ambiguity about religious liberty\u27s purpose. Adopting one or another perspective dictates the paths that courts take in religious liberty cases
Richard Delgado and Ice Cube: Brothers in Arms
Get PDFCritical Race Theory as a movement is best understood through the lens of founding voice Richard Delgado. Delgado’s prolific and fearless writings have inspired thousands and launched theories that have literally changed the course of race law in the United States. In fact, two explosive movements were born in the United States in the 1970s. While the founding of both movements was humble and lightly noticed, both grew to become global phenomena that have profoundly changed the world. Founded by prescient agitators, these two movements were borne of disaffect, disappointment, and near desperation — a desperate need to give voice to oppressed and dispossessed peoples. America in the 1970s bore witness to the founding of two furious movements: Critical Race Theory and hip-hop.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) was founded as a response to what had been deemed a sputtering civil rights agenda in the U.S. Driven primarily by law professors of color, it targeted the law by exposing the racial inequities supported by U.S. law and policy. Hip-hop, on the other hand, was founded by emerging artists, musicians, and agitators in the South Bronx neighborhoods of New York City, primarily driven by young African American disaffected youth, as a response to a faltering music industry and abject poverty. While these two movements, Critical Race Theory and hip-hop, seem significantly separated by presentation, content, and point of origin, they share startling similarities. Among the many similarities between Critical Race Theory and hip-hop, the closest link is the use of narrative in response to racism and injustice in a post-civil rights era. Further, Critical Race Theory and hip-hop share a fundamental desire to give voice to a discontent brewed by silence, and a dedication to the continuing struggle for race equality in the United States. Both Critical Race Theory and hip-hop strive toward their mutual goals of radical realignment and societal recognition and change of race and law in America.
One of the most important voices in the nascent days of the CRT movement was founding voice Richard Delgado, who along with Derrick Bell, introduced the world to CRT. Delgado published the explosive articles The Imperial Scholar and A Plea for Narrative. Delgado’s early CRT publications represented an effort to educate and enlighten the civil-rights generation, emerging scholars of color, and the rest of the legal world to the inequities and discrimination inherent in a legal system that systematically disadvantages minority citizens in the U.S. Delgado’s voice was so important during the founding of CRT that he is revered today as a true pioneer in race jurisprudence in the United States.
Similarly, no early hip-hop voice seized the attention of both fans and critics alike the way that Ice Cube and N.W.A. did when “Straight Outta Compton” shocked the nation at its release. When Ice Cube, Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, MC Ren, and DJ Yella (as N.W.A.) released Straight Outta Compton, the album dropped profoundly on the consciences of inner-city youth, the nation, and eventually, the globe. Never before had such an intensely angry, ferocious, rebellious record been released and embraced by the consuming public. Cuts like Fuck tha Police, Gangsta Gangsta, and Straight Outta Compton resonated with inner-city youth.
Both Ice Cube and Richard Delgado furiously challenged convention and status quo America
Employment Law—Employment Discrimination—Unnecessarily Duplicative: Has the Sixth Circuit Gone Too Far in Upholding an Employer’s Ability to Require Incumbent Employees to Provide Doctor’s Notes After Taking Sick Leave? Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio 636 F.3d 245 (6th Cir. 2011)
Get PDFThe Promises and Pitfalls of State Eyewitness Identification Reforms
Get PDFThis article provides a comprehensive analysis of state-based eyewitness identification reforms, including legislative directives, evidentiary rules, and judicial interpretations of state constitutions as providing greater protection against the use of unreliable eyewitness evidence than the United State Supreme Court offered in its 1977 decision in Manson v. Brathwaite. While previous scholarship has included thorough consideration of a single state\u27s eyewitness law, state-by-state analysis of a sub-issue in eyewitness law, and brief general surveys of state approaches to eyewitness reform, this article adds to the current body of scholarship with an in-depth evaluation of eyewitness identification law in states that have either rejected the federal constitutional test or have adopted other statewide measures to reduce the likelihood of wrongful conviction through eyewitness misidentification.
The analysis is based not only on examination of the texts of legislative directives and of the seminal state judicial opinions that scholars have cited previously as examples of state alternatives to Manson, but also on assessment of the subsequent application and qualification of those opinions, often in ways that have undermined the modest progress of the earlier decisions. This evaluation demonstrates that incremental, state-based reforms have been significantly less promising than the qualified praise they have received would suggest. For states that have expressed a commitment to assessing eyewitness evidence in accord with scientific developments, this article\u27s exposure of the conceptual inadequacy of many states\u27 measures, the inconsistent application of theoretically sound reforms, and, frequently, retreat from broad statements of dedication to the development of legal directives in harmony with scientific consensus, should serve as a caution and as an inspiration to do better. Ultimately, states should implement measures to ensure that law enforcement will conduct identification procedures in accord with best practices, and they should equip judges with the tools to prevent the use of unreliable eyewitness evidence in court
