Ark. Code Ann. § 16-106-101 (2026)
Actions generally
- All actions in favor of and in which the state is interested shall be brought in the name of the state and shall be prosecuted by the prosecuting attorney.
- All actions by or against the state shall be prosecuted and defended, proceeded in, and conducted to final judgment in the same manner as actions by and against individuals.
- Precedence shall be given, in all courts, to actions or other proceedings in which the state is a party, over any other business of the court.
- All actions for debts due the State of Arkansas, all actions in favor of any state officer, state board, or commissioner, in their official capacity, all actions which are authorized by the provisions of the Code of Practice in Civil Cases or by law to be brought in the name of the state, and all actions against the board, commissioner, or state officer for or on account of any official act done or omitted to be done shall be brought and prosecuted in the county where the defendant resides.
History. Rev. Stat., ch. 147, §§ 4, 5; Civil Code, §§ 484, 488; Acts 1871, No. 48, § 1 [484], p. 219; C. & M. Dig., §§ 1175, 9298, 9299, 9304; Pope's Dig., §§ 1397, 11984, 11985, 11990; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 34-201, 34-206, 34-208, 34-209.
Publisher's Notes. For codification of the Code of Practice in Civil Cases, see the parallel references for the Civil Code of 1869 in the Tables Volume A.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Grounds For Venue in Arkansas — A Survey, 25 Ark. L. Rev. 468.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Annual Survey of Caselaw, Civil Procedure, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 893.
Case Notes
In General.
Subsection (d) relates to venue rather than jurisdiction and is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Ark. Sav. & Loan Ass'n Bd. v. Corning Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 252 Ark. 264, 478 S.W.2d 431 (1972).
Judge's discretion to control a docket is not completely obviated by subsection (c) of this section; therefore, state's petition for a writ of mandamus was denied where the state was seeking to remove a mayor from office under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 9 because the trial judge had the discretion to control the docket, and the judge was not required to postpone other cases where the state was not a party in order to accommodate the state. State v. Vittitow, 358 Ark. 98, 186 S.W.3d 237 (2004).
Prosecution, Etc. of Actions.
This section was not impliedly repealed by statute authorizing regulation and enforcement of liquor laws. Southwestern Distilled Products, Inc. v. Trimble, 198 Ark. 970, 132 S.W.2d 196 (1939).
Suits Against State Agency.
Venue in suit against petitioner state administrative agency to have certain regulations it adopted declared unconstitutional had to be brought and prosecuted in the county where petitioner resided, pursuant to subsection (d), which for petitioner was in Pulaski County where petitioner's official residence was located. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Harkey, 345 Ark. 279, 45 S.W.3d 829 (2001).
Suits Not Against State.
Suit to prevent filing of assessment of contributions to unemployment fund and the resulting judgment, lien, and cloud on title of property, being not a suit against the state, was held properly instituted in the county of plaintiff's residence where its property was located. McCain v. Hammock, 204 Ark. 163, 161 S.W.2d 192 (1942).
While this section makes it mandatory that any action against the head of the state agency for public welfare be brought and prosecuted in Pulaski County, where he and the referee of the juvenile court of Pulaski County were only nominal or theoretical party defendants to the instant suit, a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of the two minor children, and had no interest in it, the jurisdiction would be governed by the residence of the actual parties in interest, those having actual custody of the children when the suit was instituted. Johnson v. McClure, 228 Ark. 1081, 312 S.W.2d 347 (1958).
A quiet title action in which a state commission is made a defendant because of its claim to the land was not such an action against the state or a commission as falls within the purview of this section and, therefore, the proper county for the action was the county in which the land lies. State ex rel. Ark. Publicity & Parks Comm'n v. Butt, 229 Ark. 433, 316 S.W.2d 204 (1958).
Venue Where Defendant Resides.
Section 16-60-103 (now § 16-60-104), requiring all actions brought on the behalf of the state to be filed in county where seat of government is located, is superseded by this section, which requires all actions filed in behalf of the state to be filed in county of residence of defendant. Cook v. Gore, 214 Ark. 777, 218 S.W.2d 82 (1949).
Former § 16-60-113 (see now § 16-60-101), fixing venue of actions for damages to personal property due to negligence of another either in county where accident occurred or county where the owner of the property resides, applies only to persons and not the state, and does not amend this section which requires all actions brought in behalf of the state to be filed in county of where defendant resides. Cook v. Gore, 214 Ark. 777, 218 S.W.2d 82 (1949).
The venue of an action brought by a county in the name of the state to recover damages to county property against a foreign corporation admitted to do business in Arkansas and an individual resident of Pulaski County was in Pulaski County. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Roberts, 246 Ark. 864, 440 S.W.2d 208 (1969).
Action seeking a declaratory judgment interpreting a lease agreement did not involve recovery of an interest in real property and should have been brought by the state in the county of defendant's residence. Doyle v. Williams, 251 Ark. 797, 475 S.W.2d 170 (1972).
Where candidate filed a petition for qualification as an independent candidate for the office of Arkansas House of Representatives and his petition was denied because it did not contain the required number of verified signatures, the candidate erred by filing a civil rights action against the Arkansas Secretary of State in the Phillips County Circuit Court; subsection (d) of this section required the suit to be filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Daniels v. Weaver, 367 Ark. 327, 240 S.W.3d 95 (2006).
—State Officers.
The State Treasurer may not be sued except in the county of his official residence even though he is alleged to be a joint tortfeasor with defendant resident of another county in which suit is brought. Leonard v. Henry, 187 Ark. 75, 58 S.W.2d 430 (1933).
A mandamus proceeding against the State Land Commissioner to require him to perform a ministerial duty must be instituted in the county where such officer resides. Reed v. Wilson, 163 Ark. 520, 260 S.W. 438 (1924); Clark v. Trammell, 208 Ark. 450, 186 S.W.2d 668 (1945). See also Lewis v. Owen, 146 Ark. 469, 225 S.W. 648 (1920).
Where statute requires all actions against a state officer to be brought in the county of the officer's official residence, the word “officer” means one who holds an office, or specifically a person lawfully invested with an office. Downey v. Toler, 214 Ark. 334, 216 S.W.2d 60 (1948).
This section is not changed by former § 16-60-102 (now § 16-60-103), which fixes the venue in actions against other public officers, except state officers, on the ground of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” as it refers to actions against state officers and former § 16-60-102 (now § 16-60-103) refers to actions against public officers. Downey v. Toler, 214 Ark. 334, 216 S.W.2d 60 (1948).
Members of the Arkansas State Police are state members and therefore can be sued only in the official residence of the state police, which is Pulaski County. Downey v. Toler, 214 Ark. 334, 216 S.W.2d 60 (1948).
Former § 16-60-112 (see now § 16-60-101), providing venue for all actions for damages for personal injuries as the county where the accident occurred, did not change the venue as provided by this section and two state police officers were entitled to venue in Pulaski County, the official county residence for all state police. Downey v. Toler, 214 Ark. 334, 216 S.W.2d 60 (1948).
As the official residence of the gas board and its director is Pulaski County, the proper venue is Pulaski County. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Bd. v. Newton, 230 Ark. 267, 322 S.W.2d 67 (1959).
Taxpayer's suit against state police official in his official capacity for permitting individual to operate overweight trucks and to purchase improper licenses for trucks could only be maintained in Pulaski County, the official residence of the Arkansas State Police. Dean v. Cole, 236 Ark. 64, 364 S.W.2d 305 (1963).
Cited: Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Colvin, 257 Ark. 889, 521 S.W.2d 206 (1975); Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Mills, 371 Ark. 317, 265 S.W.3d 760 (2007); State v. Hammame, 102 Ark. App. 87, 282 S.W.3d 278 (2008).