Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-115-104 (2026)

Hearings — Necessity — Time

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. It shall be within the discretion of the judge having jurisdiction, within forty-five (45) days from the date of application, to determine from the petition, and the records and files of the case, whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
  2. In the event a hearing is deemed necessary, the judge shall fix and announce a day of court to be held within forty-five (45) days from the date of application.

History. Acts 1939, No. 54, § 6; A.S.A. 1947, § 33-106; Acts 1991, No. 582, § 1.

Cross References. Motion day and hearings on motions, Ark. R. Civ. P. 78.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Watkins, Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 268.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Civil Procedure, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 747.

Case Notes

Effect of Noncompliance.

Even if the statutory procedure for mandamus was not precisely followed, that fact will not void a conviction, nor will it shorten the length of time defendant must serve before being eligible for parole. Gilmer v. Massey, 303 Ark. 634, 799 S.W.2d 526 (1990).

Notice.

The minimum two days' notice provided by this section is expressly mandatory. Savage v. Hawkins, 239 Ark. 658, 391 S.W.2d 18 (1965).

Request for Hearing.

Where teacher, whose notice of nonrenewal was late, filed suit for a writ of mandamus to compel members of school board to issue a teaching contract to her for 1982-83 school year, but case did not come to trial until school year had ended, and where teacher had failed to request hearing pursuant to this section, case was moot. Frisby v. Strong School Dist., 282 Ark. 81, 666 S.W.2d 391 (1984).

Cited: Rastle v. Marion County Rural School Dist. No. 1, 260 Ark. 740, 543 S.W.2d 923 (1976); State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead County Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 300 Ark. 405, 779 S.W.2d 169 (1989); Buttolph Trust v. Jarnagan, 302 Ark. 393, 789 S.W.2d 466 (1990).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–1998 · leading case: Jenkins v. Bogard, 980 S.W.2d 270 (Ark. 1998).
Jenkins v. Bogard, 980 S.W.2d 270 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 4× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-115-104 (Supp. 1997).”
Gilmer v. Massey, 799 S.W.2d 526 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 6× “It has nothing to do with any change in legislation. Next, appellant argues that the trial court denied him due process of law by failing to accord him the procedures mandated by Ark.”
Buttolph Trust v. Jarnagan, 789 S.W.2d 466 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2× “The trust moved to have the case heard within seven days, as provided by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-115-104 (1987). The appellee answered and filed a motion to dismiss.”
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.