The Nature and Cost of Risk and Uncertainty

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses risk and uncertainty to explain people’s decision making as to investments. Frankel points out that people have varying degrees of tolerance for risk and uncertainty, due in part to cultural and individual differences.

Read More

Harmon v. Payne

Citation: 2020 Ark. 17

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint filed against Arkansas prison officials under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and state tort law for allegedly depriving him of a nutritionally adequate diet safe for consumption but reversed the circuit court's imposition of a strike for the dismissal of the underlying action, holding that dismissal was warranted but the strike was not. In dismissing the complaint, the circuit court concluded that Plaintiff's claims were barred by sovereign and statutory immunity and failed to state facts upon which relief could be granted. The court also issued a strike under Ark. Code Ann. 16-68-607. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) because Plaintiff's allegations failed to establish a constitutional violation Plaintiff failed to surmount sovereign and statutory immunity; and (2) the strike was unwarranted.

Henington v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 11

Opinion Date: January 16, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's claims were not cognizable in coram nobis proceedings. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that prejudicial testimony provided by the State's expert witness was admitted at trial without objection from counsel or an admonishment from the trial court and that the admission of this testimony deprived him of due process. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that there was no error in the admission of the allegedly prejudicial testimony, and therefore, Petitioner failed to allege a due process violation that would come within the purview of coram nobis relief.