The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.
Publisher's Notes.
This section was formerly codified as § 16-111-108 and was renumbered as § 16-111-106 in 2016 by the Arkansas Code Revision Commission.
Trial court did not err in dismissing a declaratory judgment action on the ground that the issues present in a city's declaratory-judgment suit against a telecommunications company would be determined in a federal case that the telecommunications company was preparing to file between the parties in federal court; further, the state court action might not have resolved all the issues between the parties. City of Fort Smith v. Didicom Towers, Inc., 362 Ark. 469, 209 S.W.3d 344 (2005).
Parties Not Included.
Where all of the parties with an interest in the election that would be affected were not parties to the action, a declaratory judgment voiding election was properly refused as it would actually complicate the controversy rather than terminate it. McFarlin v. Kelly, 246 Ark. 1237, 442 S.W.2d 183 (1969).
Where all necessary parties have not been brought into court, the trial court should refuse to render a declaratory judgment in the case. Board of Educ. v. Ozark Sch. Dist., 2 Ark. App. 112, 619 S.W.2d 304 (1981).
Cited:
Cairns v. Witt, 242 Ark. 735, 415 S.W.2d 47 (1967); American Television Co. v. City of Fayetteville, 253 Ark. 760, 489 S.W.2d 754 (1973); Yamauchi v. Sovran Bank/Central S., 309 Ark. 532, 832 S.W.2d 241 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Landers v. Jameson, 132 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. 2003).
Landers v. Jameson, 132 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 18דThe court of appeals expressed no opinion as to the effect of the Pawn Shop's failure to notify the Attorney General that it was raising an issue of the statutes' constitutionality pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (1987). The court of appeals did not decide the…”
Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 120 S.W.3d 525 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 6דArk. Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (b) (1987). Cases involving the constitutionality of various statutes are cited by Moncrief and Sherwood to support their contention that this court should decline to review the merits of the constitutional challenge.”
Schermerhorn v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 395 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10דArk. Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (Repl. 2006).”
Martin v. Kohls, 2014 Ark. 427 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 4דMartin contends that, pursuant to the declaratory-judgment statute found at Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-111-106 (Repl. 2006), all persons who have or claim an interest must be made parties, and that Appellees did not join the necessary parties.”
Reagan v. City of Piggott, 805 S.W.2d 636 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 4דAppellee responds that appellant has no standing to challenge these sections of the Medical Malpractice Act as they were not applied so as to injure appellant.”
Our Cmty., Our Dollars v. Bullock, 2014 Ark. 457 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 4דAt the behest of the circuit court, the clerk examined the remaining 1 As required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-111-106 (Repl. 2006), appellees notified the attorney general of these constitutional challenges.”
Hutton v. Savage, 769 S.W.2d 394 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 4דAnd what of the attorney general? Ark.Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (1987) requires that the attorney general be given the opportunity to defend a statute against constitutional attack, and failure to do so is error.”
Beebe v. Fountain Lake Sch. Dist., 231 S.W.3d 628 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2דMoreover, the present case involves a constitutional question involving the imposition of a property tax pursuant to Amendment 74.”
Carney v. State, 808 S.W.2d 755 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 4דThe appellee cites in support of its argument the declaratory judgment statute which reads in part: (b) In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard, and if the…”
Abraham v. Beck, 2015 Ark. 80 (Ark. 2015). · cites it 2דAppellants served the attorney general with a copy of the complaint as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-111-106 (Repl.2006). The Board and Chairman Beck filed their answer on June 17, 2013, and the State filed a motion to intervene on August 8, 2013.”
Brumley v. Naples, 896 S.W.2d 860 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2דFurther, the record reveals that no notice of appellant’s constitutional challenge was given to the Attorney General pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (1987), and, on that ground, we may choose not to consider the argument on appeal.”
Landers v. Jameson, 132 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. 2003). “The court of appeals expressed no opinion as to the effect of the Pawn Shop's failure to notify the Attorney General that it was raising an issue of the statutes' constitutionality pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (1987). The court of appeals did not decide the…”
Schermerhorn v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 395 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-106 (Repl. 2006).”
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.