Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 111
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-104 (2026)

Executor, etc

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, lunatic, or insolvent, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:

  1. To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin or others;
  2. To direct the executors, administrators, or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or
  3. To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.

History. Acts 1953, No. 274, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-2503.

Publisher's Notes. This section was formerly codified as § 16-111-105 and was renumbered as § 16-111-104 in 2016 by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission.

Former § 16-111-104 was renumbered as § 16-111-102.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1991–2017 · leading case: Jegley v. Picado, 80 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jegley v. Picado, 80 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 12× “Our statute on the right to a declaratory judgment states: Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or…”
Ahmad v. Beck, 2016 Ark. 30 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 10× “Ahmad contends that, even though his administrative appeal was pending, he was entitled to bring a separate action for declaratory judgment pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-15-207 of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act and Arkansas’s declaratory-judgment…”
City of Cave Springs v. City of Rogers, 37 S.W.3d 607 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 3× “Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-111-104 (1987) further provides: Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or…”
Perroni v. Sachar, 2017 Ark. 59 (Ark. 2017). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-104 . In Andres v.”
Baptist Health Med. Sys. v. Rutledge, 2016 Ark. 121 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-104 (Repl. 2006).”
City of Lowell v. City of Rogers, 43 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 6× “In so holding, we specifically relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-104 (1987), which states: Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal…”
Wilmans v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 S.W.3d 245 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “Contrary to Sears's argument, Moreno is not an indispensable party.”
McCutchen v. City of Fort Smith, 425 S.W.3d 671 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 2× “2006), [a]ny person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of…”
McKinnon v. Norris, 231 S.W.3d 725 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “The results of testing appellant’s urine sample indicated that the sample had been diluted. Appellant was written up for violating behavior rule 02-16, “[rjefusal to submit to substance abuse testing for determination of violation of Rule 02-2.”
Nelson v. Arkansas Rural Med. Practice Loan & Scholarship Bd., 385 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. 2011). · cites it 2× “2006), [a]ny person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have determined any question of…”
City of Fayetteville v. Washington Cnty., 255 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-104 (Repl. 2006).”
City of Pine Bluff v. Jones, 258 S.W.3d 361 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 4× “" Ark.Code Ann. § 16-111-102 (Repl.1987). Under this Act, "[a]ny person interested under a .”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.