menu

School of Law
1045 W. Maple St.
Robert A. Leflar Law Center
Waterman Hall
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Phone: (479) 575-5601

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Youtube

University of Arkansas School of Law

Arkansas Law Notes

Civil Litigation

Contemplating the Future of EEO Law: Will the ADEA Continue To Protect Age Equality? Father Time Will Tell…

While the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the Act) is widespread, this paper briefly highlights its history and will offer points of contemplation of the future effectiveness of the Act for plaintiffs in light of a heightened burden of proof and an aging work population.

Selected Construction Contract Clauses: From the Routine to the Cutting Edge

This article discusses nine topics that present special challenges for attorneys negotiating and drafting construction contracts. Most of these involve standard issues that come up in practically every construction project. A few involve developments that are just beginning to attract the special attention of the construction bar.

Shannon v. Wilson and the Arkansas Dramshop Act of 1999

On January 28, 1995 two young men (both age thirteen) were passengers in a Ford pickup truck driven by another young man age sixteen. The three of them drove up to a drive through window of a liquor store in Fayetteville, Arkansas and purchased a six pack of beer as well as a six pack of malt liquor. They were not asked to provide any proof of age. Sometime later the party stopped at a pool hall in St. Paul, where the sixteen year old exited the vehicle. The remaining boys stayed in the vehicle drinking the rest of the liquor. Eventually they departed. Shortly after 9:00 PM the Arkansas State Police were notified of an accident in Madison County. Upon their arrival at the scene they observed a pickup truck which had left the road, hit a fence, a telephone pole, and finally came to rest after hitting a tree. The two occupants were pronounced dead on the scene.

The Arkansas “mini-RFRA” is bad policy

This article submits two main arguments.[5] First, it posits that the passage of a State “mini-RFRA” bill intensifies the necessity for an amendment to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act to provide Statewide prohibitions against discrimination in housing, employment, and places of public accommodation on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

SCOTUS Adopts a Workable Definition of “Supervisor” Under Title VII

The following is an excerpt from the author’s blog: In Vance v. Ball State University, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito and delivered on June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for the purpose of determining an employer’s liability […]

The Forum Defendant Rule in Arkansas

For those of us interested in or practicing in commercial civil litigation, removal of a case from state court to federal court is a regular event. It also is an important strategic event for defendants because of perceived tactical advantages of a federal […]

;