<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Arizona Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org</link>
	<description>University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:40:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>In re Estate of Kirkes: Non-Spouse Beneficiaries and Community Property Retirement Accounts</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-the-estate-of-kirkes-non-spouse-beneficiaries-and-community-property-retirement-accounts</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-the-estate-of-kirkes-non-spouse-beneficiaries-and-community-property-retirement-accounts#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 02:44:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Syllabus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Arizona Supreme Court in In re Estate of Kirkes held that a deceased spouse can leave more than one-half of a community-owned retirement account to a non-spouse beneficiary, so long as the surviving spouse receives at least one-half of &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-the-estate-of-kirkes-non-spouse-beneficiaries-and-community-property-retirement-accounts">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-the-estate-of-kirkes-non-spouse-beneficiaries-and-community-property-retirement-accounts/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sue on Pay: Say on Pay&#8217;s Impact on Directors&#8217; Fiduciary Duties</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/fairfax</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/fairfax#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:49:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Article advances a normative case for using say on pay litigation to enhance the state courts’ role in policing directors’ compensation decisions. Outrage over what many perceive to be excessive executive compensation has escalated dramatically in recent years. In &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/fairfax">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/fairfax/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t &#8220;Screw Joe The Plummer&#8221;: The Sausage-Making of Financial Reform</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/krawie</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/krawie#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Article examines agency-level activity during the preproposal rulemaking phase—a time period about which little is known despite its importance to policy outcomes—through an analysis of federal agency activity in connection with section 619 of the Dodd–Frank Act, popularly known &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/krawie">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/krawie/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agency Costs in the Era of Economic Crisis: The Enhanced Connection Between CEO Compensation and Corporate Cash Holdings</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/gano</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/gano#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Article reports the results of an empirical study that suggest that the current economic crisis has changed managerial behavior in the United States in a way that may impede economic recovery. The study finds a strong, statistically significant, and &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/gano">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/gano/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Payback: A Structural Analysis of the Credit Card Problem</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/freema</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/freema#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The market failure deemed “the credit card problem” is in fact a story of unprecedented market success. Advanced underwriting technology has facilitated identification of the most profitable credit card consumer as one who is on the verge of bankruptcy. The &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/freema">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/freema/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saving Face: Regulating Law Enforcement&#8217;s Use of Mobile Facial Recognition Technology &amp; Iris Scans</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/lochne</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/lochne#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 05:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1594</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2012, more than 50 law enforcement agencies across the United States began using a mobile device, the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System (“MORIS”), to identify persons via facial recognition technology (“FRT”) and iris scans. No legislative guidelines exist &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/lochne">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/lochne/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appearances Can Be Deceiving: Default Judgments by Motion or Hearing Under Rule 55(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/wilson-mcnerne</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/wilson-mcnerne#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 03:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 55, Issue 1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Within the span of nine months, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued two directly conflicting rulings on the correct procedures required to obtain a default judgment under Rule 55(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Rule 55(b) seems &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/wilson-mcnerne">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/55-1/wilson-mcnerne/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Estate of Riley: Beneficiary Consent in Court-Approved Settlements</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-estate-of-riley-beneficiary-consent-in-court-approved-settlements</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-estate-of-riley-beneficiary-consent-in-court-approved-settlements#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 02:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Syllabus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hadar L. Avraham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Raphael J. Avraham]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Arizona Supreme Court recently decided in In re Estate of Riley that all beneficiaries of an estate must execute a settlement agreement if the agreement affects the beneficiaries’ interests in the estate and the parties to the agreement seek &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-estate-of-riley-beneficiary-consent-in-court-approved-settlements">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/in-re-estate-of-riley-beneficiary-consent-in-court-approved-settlements/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sell v. Gama</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/sell-v-gama</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/sell-v-gama#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 03:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Syllabus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Arizona Supreme Court recently held that the Arizona Securities Act (“ASA”) does not allow a claim for aiding and abetting securities fraud and the Court expressly overruled a previous case, State v. Superior Court (Davis).1 Specifically, the Court reasoned &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/sell-v-gama">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/sell-v-gama/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pedersen v. Bennett, 230 Ariz. 556, 288 P.3d 760 (2012)</title>
		<link>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/pedersenbennett</link>
		<comments>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/pedersenbennett#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>alr_rocks</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Syllabus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arizonalawreview.org/?p=1471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Declining to depart from substantial compliance test for review of initiatives, Arizona Supreme Court explains its decision to allow challenged proposition on the 2012 ballot. The Supreme Court recently held that a clerical error in the submission of an initiative &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/pedersenbennett">Continue reading</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2013/syllabus/pedersenbennett/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
