The Intra-Party Fight Among the Democratic Candidates Is Necessary and Healthy

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the Democratic presidential candidates attacking each other over policy differences and other issues rather than unifying to oppose President Trump in the general election. Buchanan argues that, perhaps illogically, the infighting is essential and a healthy part of the process.

Read More

City of Little Rock v. Alexander Apartments, LLC

Citation: 2020 Ark. 12

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the circuit court's order awarding damages under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act to Alexander Apartments, LLC and certain tenants after determining that the City of Little Rock violated Appellees' due process rights under the Arkansas Constitution, holding that the circuit court correctly found that the City violated Appellees' due process rights but incorrectly awarded damages. On appeal, the City argued that it did not violate Alexander Apartments' or the tenants' due process rights under the Arkansas Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the circuit court was correct as a matter of law that the City violated Alexander Apartments' and the tenants' due process rights under the Arkansas Constitution; (2) substantial evidence supported the circuit court's award of damages to Alexander Apartments in the amount of $432,744.33; and (3) the circuit court erroneously considered events and circumstances that were unrelated to the City's due process violations in determining the tenants' damages awards.

Hallman v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 16

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition seeking to proceed in the trial court with a petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, in which he would challenge a judgment reflecting his sentence of life imprisonment without parole for capital murder, holding that Petitioner failed to set out a meritorious basis for relief under Rule 37.1. The judgment challenged by Petitioner was entered in 1978. In his petition, Petitioner alleged seven bases for grounds for Rule 37 relief, all framed as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to set forth meritorious grounds for postconviction relief under the Rule that may be included in the proposed petition. Therefore, the Court held, there was no need to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court.

Tolston v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 14

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela in his criminal case, holding that Petitioner's claims did not establish a ground for the writ. In his petition, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in failing to apply the criminal code section that was in effect at the time was committed and that the prosecutor committed a Brady violation by withholding a medical report pertaining to an examination of the victim. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the existence of medical records that described the absence of corroborating physical evidence was known to defense counsel and that, even if the prosecutor had withheld this medical report, the outcome of the trial would not have changed as a result.