Ark. Code Ann. § 16-115-102 (2026)

Case Notes

County Judges.

A county judge may be compelled by mandamus to perform an act. Parker v. Saline County, 288 Ark. 108, 702 S.W.2d 7 (1986).

Election Officials.

Former statute empowered the circuit court to issue the writ of mandamus to election judges. Brooks v. Pullen, 187 Ark. 80, 58 S.W.2d 682 (1933) (decision under prior law).

Circuit court was held to have jurisdiction to issue mandamus directing county central committee of political party to have names of candidates for township committeemen placed on the ballot. Stock v. Harris, 193 Ark. 114, 97 S.W.2d 920 (1936) (decision under prior law).

The circuit court had no jurisdiction of a proceeding for a writ of mandamus requiring the secretary of a political party's county central committee to turn over all its books, records, and property to “new” committee chairman and secretary where their election was in question and where the members of the “former” committee were not parties to the action. Rosa v. Mabry, 196 Ark. 156, 116 S.W.2d 614 (1938) (decision under prior law).

Former statute gave the circuit court jurisdiction by writ of mandamus over the county central committee for the sole purpose of allowing the minority of a party a right of representation in choosing of judges and clerks for the primary, but the statute did not make county committeemen officers for other purposes; hence their election was a matter solely for determination by the party. Park v. Kincannon, 214 Ark. 398, 216 S.W.2d 376 (1949).

If candidate at preferential primary was entitled to have his name placed on general primary ballot and chairman and secretary of county committee refused to have his name printed thereon, chairman and secretary would be refusing to perform ministerial duty and could be compelled by mandamus to perform it. Higgins v. Barnhill, 218 Ark. 466, 236 S.W.2d 1011 (1951), overruled in part, Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 248 Ark. 143, 450 S.W.2d 777 (1970), overruled to such an extent as conflicts, Nethercutt v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 248 Ark. 143, 450 S.W.2d 777 (1970).

The officers of a county central committee can be compelled by the court to perform the ministerial duty of issuing a certificate of election to the person entitled to it. Cox v. Wentz, 231 Ark. 205, 329 S.W.2d 413 (1959).

The circuit court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directing the city clerk to comply with Ark. Const., Amend. 7, by giving certain city residents written notice of the insufficiency of a referendum petition and to permit correction or amendment within 10 days. Bradley v. Galloway, 279 Ark. 231, 651 S.W.2d 445 (1983).

General Assembly.

Where the duty sought to be enforced by a writ of mandamus is imposed upon the Senate and the House and those bodies have refused to do that which is sought to be compelled, neither the president of the Senate nor the Speaker of the House has the power, without the concurrence of the house over which he presides, to execute the order, if made. Wells v. Purcell, 267 Ark. 456, 592 S.W.2d 100 (1979).

Adjourning and extending a legislative session are clearly among the powers of the General Assembly; once it has exercised its powers, even if they have been exercised erroneously, it is clear that a circuit court has no power, without violating Ark. Const., Art. 4, § 2 and extending the scope of the writ of mandamus, to issue the writ to that body. Wells v. Purcell, 267 Ark. 456, 592 S.W.2d 100 (1979).

In Vacation.

The court sitting in vacation, not a judge in vacation, can hear and award the writ. Miller v. Tatum, 170 Ark. 152, 279 S.W. 1002 (1926) (decision under prior law).

Justices of Peace.

When a justice of the peace refused to issue a supersedeas upon the filing of a schedule of exempt property, the proper remedy was by mandamus. Smith v. Ragsdale, 36 Ark. 297 (1880) (decision under prior law).

Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has power to issue writs of mandamus to the circuit court to compel it to act, but not to control its discretion, where it has any. It may enforce the performance of ministerial acts by the circuit court. McCreary v. Rogers, 35 Ark. 298 (1880) (decision under prior law).

The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue mandamus to clerk of circuit court to compel him to perform a duty required of him by law, although the circuit judge was disqualified to act in the matter. Ex parte Snoddy, 44 Ark. 221 (1884) (decision under prior law).

The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on a petition for mandamus to require a court stenographer to furnish a transcript of the proceedings; rather, its powers were limited to compelling the clerk of the trial court to send up such record as had been made. Ex parte Whitley, 113 Ark. 372, 168 S.W. 144 (1914) (decision under prior law).

Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed individuals' petition to set the date of an election for the date set out in the referendum petition as it did not have jurisdiction under this section to hear the petition. Spatz v. City of Conway, 362 Ark. 588, 210 S.W.3d 69 (2005).

Writ of Prohibition.

The purpose of a writ of prohibition is not to prohibit a lower court from committing error, but to prohibit the unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction when there is no other adequate remedy available by appeal or otherwise. McGlothlin v. Kemp, 314 Ark. 495, 863 S.W.2d 313 (1993).

Cited: Stilley v. Henson, 342 Ark. 346, 28 S.W.3d 274 (2000); Stilley v. Makris, 343 Ark. 673, 38 S.W.3d 889 (2001).