Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Booker T. Washington, Jr. filed a claim against Porocel Corporation with the Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging exposure to asbestos and silica dust resulting in lung disease and silicosis. An ALJ found Washington's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Washington subsequently filed suit against Porocel, alleging, inter alia, negligence and breach of implied warranty. Porocel moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction of the claims alleged and that the Arkansas Workers Compensation Act (Act) was Washington's exclusive remedy. The circuit court denied Porocel's motion to dismiss, concluding that Washington's occupational disease was not one for which the Act provided coverage. Porocel then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over Washington's complaint. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Washington's claim was covered by the Act. View "Porocel Corp. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant submitted a proposal to the City of Pine Bluff Planning Commission requesting a Use Permitted on Review permit to utilize certain premises in Pine Bluff as a foster-care facility for displaced children. The Planning Commission and City Council denied Appellant's request. On appeal, the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that, although Pine Bluff City Ordinance 29-37 conferred standing on Appellant to bring the action, the ordinance was in conflict with Ark. R. Civ. P. 17, which requires that an action be brought by the real party in interest, and Rule 17 overrode the ordinance. Consequently, the circuit court ruled that, because Appellant was not the real party in interest, she lacked standing to bring suit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the record did not contain the ordinance, the record was inadequate for review. View "Coleman v. City of Pine Bluff" on Justia Law

A disciplinary action was imposed upon Appellant, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Appellant filed a petition for judicial review and declaratory judgment seeking to challenge the dismissal of his grievance concerning the disciplinary action, the application of an administrative directive by prison officials, and policies he asserted were in violation of contractual obligations of the ADC concerning his conduct in regard to hobby crafts while incarcerated. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly determined that Appellant's petition did not set forth facts to show deprivation of a liberty interest and, as a result, Appellant failed to sustain a claim under the Arkansas Administrative Review Act to support a judicial review of the ADC's decision. View "Renfro v. Smith" on Justia Law

After the Garland County elected treasurer, Jo West Taylor, had received monthly retirement checks for over a year from the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS), the APERS executive director terminated Taylor's benefits. The APERS Board of Trustees upheld the decision, determining (1) Taylor had not terminated her employment and her benefits were thus forfeited, and (2) Taylor was ineligible to receive additional service credits after the time she began receiving benefits. The circuit court (1) affirmed the Board's determination that Taylor had failed to terminate her employment, but (2) reversed the Board's finding that Taylor was ineligible to receive additional service credit. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Board's decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusions. View "Ark. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Taylor" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a medical helicopter accident in Arkansas. Employer was the owner and operator of the helicopter and provided air-ambulance services to the area. Nurse and EMT (collectively, Appellants) and Pilot (Appellee) were all employees of Employer. On the day of the accident, Appellants picked up the victim of an automobile accident in Arkansas, and Pilot piloted the helicopter toward the hospital. However, the helicopter crashed. Nurse and EMT brought a negligence suit against Pilot, alleging their injuries were caused by Pilot's negligent operation of the helicopter. The circuit court dismissed the suit based on the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Appellants appealed, and the case was transferred to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission concluded that, at the time of the accident, Pilot was performing his employer's duty to provide a safe work place for Appellants and was therefore entitled to immunity under the workers' compensation statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not err in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Miller v. Enders" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case were three companies engaged in providing cable-television services to subscribers (collectively, "Charter"). In a consolidated petition for review, Charter challenged the Tax Division of Appellee Arkansas Public Service Commission's ad valorem assessments of its properties for the tax years 2006 through 2009. The Commission upheld the Tax Division's assessments, and the circuit court affirmed. Charter appealed, arguing (1) the assessments were erroneous because they included the valuation of intangible personal property, which it claimed was exempt from taxation, and (2) the assessment of intangible property was illegal because the tax Division failed to promulgate rules that would provide notice of the change to taxpayers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Commission did not err by assessing the value of Charter's intangible personal property because the relevant statutes require the assessment of a cable-television company's intangible personal property, and the exemption provision exempting the taxation of intangible personal property did not apply; and (2) the Court was precluded from addressing Charter's second issue on appeal. View "Falcon Cable Media LP v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This case involved provisions of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The circuit court dismissed Appellant's complaint against Appellees, the city, the city administrator, and members of the board of directors, contending that the administrator violated the open-meetings provision of the FOIA when he presented to individual board members, in advance of a study session, a memorandum expressing his opinion on a proposed ordinance that might come before the board. The circuit court found in favor of Appellees. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's conclusion that the administrator did not violate the open-meetings provision of the FOIA; and (2) reversed the circuit court's findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to its determination that the FOIA's open-meetings provision and criminal provision were unconstitutional. In so holding, the Court declined to grant Appellees' request to overrule Harris v. City of Fort Smith, in which the Court construed the open-meetings provision of the FOIA to give effect to the intent of the legislature that public business be performed in an open and public manner. View "McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from issues involving the school-funding system and the disbursement of uniform rate of tax (URT) revenues to Arkansas's public-school districts. Appellees, school districts and their taxpayers ("School Districts"), filed a complaint seeking a declaration that any attempt by Appellants, the commissioner of the department of education and the state treasurer ("ADE"), to demand URT revenues in excess of the foundation-funding amount from Appellees was unconstitutional. The circuit court enjoined ADE from (1) seeking repayment of any portion of the URT revenues assessed for purposes of school funding from Appellees, and (2) withholding monies belonging to Appellees for the repayment of the URT revenues required for school funding from state or federal monies owed to the districts. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal and reversed on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly found that ADE was not authorized by the legislature to recoup and redistribute any URT revenues received from the School Districts that were in excess of the foundation-funding amount; (2) did not err in finding that ADE lacked the authority to withhold monies from the School Districts; and (3) erred in finding that the revenues generated by the URT were state-tax revenues. View "Kimbrell v. McCleskey" on Justia Law

This was an appeal from a circuit court judgment affirming the classification of real property for tax purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that the Arkansas Constitution and the Assessment Coordination Rules and Regulations allowed the land at issue to be classified as residential and not timber land; (2) ad hoc requirements were not imposed only on Appellants by Appellee Pope County Board of Equalization (BOE); (3) Appellants failed to demonstrate that they were similarly situated to any other taxpayer or landowner within the city limits, and therefore, Appellants' equal-protection claim that the circuit court erred in denying Appellants' petition without considering similarly situated property owners with similar property classified as timber and pasture within city limits was without merit; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a site visit by BOE's expert witness between the first day of trial and the second day of trial. View "McWilliams v. Pope County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed form the decision of the circuit court, which upheld an order of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission granting relief to SEECO, Inc. in connection with a proposed drilling and production unit. The court of appeals affirmed in part, finding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal in which Appellants argued that the circuit court erred by not allowing them to present additional evidence to the Commission. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals opinion and affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellants' appeal from the circuit court's order denying Appellants' request to present additional evidence to the Commission. View "Walls v. Ark. Oil & Gas Comm'n" on Justia Law