blanket rule in Arkansas

2001The Court again addressed the knock-and-announce principle in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997), when it struck down a blanket rule of the Wisconsin supreme court that allowed police executing felony drug search warrants to enter premises without knocking and announcing their presence.

2001In rejecting the Wisconsin rule, the Court explained that “if a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.” See id. at 394 .

2013At the hearing, when appellant was discussing our decision in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole, 2011 Ark. 145 , 380 S.W.3d 429 , he specifically argued that non-cohabitation provisions in custody cases are “not a blanket rule,” and that it is a 9 Cite as 2013 Ark. 478 “case by case determination, whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing in a particular case.” Thus, we find that this argument is properly preserved for our review.

2013At the hearing, when appellant was discussing our decision in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole, 2011 Ark. 145 , 380 S.W.3d 429 , he specifically argued that non-cohabitation provisions in custody cases are “not a blanket rule,” and that it is a 9 Cite as 2013 Ark. 478 “case by case determination, whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing in a particular case.” Thus, we find that this argument is properly preserved for our review.

2013At the hearing, when appellant was discussing our decision in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cole, 2011 Ark. 145 , 380 S.W.3d 429 , he specifically argued that non-cohabitation provisions in custody cases are “not a blanket rule,” and that it is a 9 Cite as 2013 Ark. 478 “case by case determination, whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing in a particular case.” Thus, we find that this argument is properly preserved for our review.

2008From this distinction comes the requirement under collateral estoppel that the issue to be precluded must have been "actually litigated." Thus, "actually litigated" has nothing to do with whether the judgment was obtained by default, summary adjudication, trial, or otherwise; rather, the question is whether the issue to be precluded was adjudicated in the judgment at issue. [3] As the dissent notes in citing In re Cantrell, 329 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2003), California does not follow the courts that hold there is a blanket rule against applying collateral estoppel to default judgments.

2008As the dissent notes in citing In re Cantrell, 329 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), California does not follow the courts that hold there is a blanket rule against applying collateral estoppel to default judgments.

1999Our cases have stated the blanket rule that “[i]f a notice of appeal is not received by the Commission within thirty days, the decision becomes final and the Commission is without authority to review the case.” Tracor/MBA, 41 Ark.

1999App. at 189 , 850 S.W.2d at 32 .

1991As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Idaho, in Toner v. Lederle Laboratories, 112 Idaho 328 , 732 P.2d 297 (1987): [C]omment [k] refers to “some” products which are unavoidably unsafe; the comment states such products are “especially common in the field of drugs;” the comment cites certain examples from that field deserving of its protection and notes that “ [t] he same is true of many other drugs . . . [and in particular] many new or experimental drugs. . . .” Obviously, the comment does not apply to all drugs.

1991As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Idaho, in Toner v. Lederle Laboratories, 112 Idaho 328 , 732 P.2d 297 (1987): [C]omment [k] refers to “some” products which are unavoidably unsafe; the comment states such products are “especially common in the field of drugs;” the comment cites certain examples from that field deserving of its protection and notes that “ [t] he same is true of many other drugs . . . [and in particular] many new or experimental drugs. . . .” Obviously, the comment does not apply to all drugs.