Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-201 (2026)
Jurisdiction
- Circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters not otherwise assigned pursuant to the Arkansas Constitution.
-
- Circuit courts shall have appellate jurisdiction of the judgments and final orders of county courts, district courts, city courts, and police courts in all civil actions.
- On appeal from such judgments and final orders, the case shall be tried de novo, and the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit court shall extend to errors of fact as well as errors of law.
- The circuit courts shall have appellate jurisdiction from the decision of any inferior board, council, or tribunal in the contest of any county, township, or municipal office, and on such appeals the case shall be tried de novo.
History. Civil Code, §§ 18-20; Acts 1871, No. 48, § 1 [19], p. 249; 1873, No. 88, § 1 [18, 19], p. 213; C. & M. Dig., §§ 2228, 2233, 2234; Pope's Dig., §§ 2856, 2861, 2862; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 22-301, 22-304, 22-308; Acts 2003, No. 1185, § 74.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Section 19 of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution provided that all municipal courts were to become district courts on January 1, 2005, and that they should assume the jurisdiction previously vested in municipal courts, police courts, justice of the peace courts, and courts of common pleas. Those courts were abolished by the amendment. City courts were to continue, but if abolished by the governing body of the city or by the General Assembly, the jurisdiction of the city court would then vest in the nearest district court.
Cross References. District court generally, § 16-17-132.
Jurisdiction of circuit courts, Ark. Const. Amend. 80, §§ 6, 19.
Research References
ALR.
Criminal jurisdiction of municipal or other local court. 102 A.L.R.5th 525.
Case Notes
Administrative Determinations.
The legislature has the right, in authorizing a civil service commission, to vest in the circuit court the power to review judicially, either by way of original proceeding or by way of appeal, the action of the commission. Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Matlock, 205 Ark. 286, 168 S.W.2d 424 (1943).
Appellate Jurisdiction.
The circuit court can acquire no jurisdiction by appeal from a court or justice of the peace that was without jurisdiction. Little Rock, Miss. R. & Tex. R.R. v. Manees, 44 Ark. 100 (1884); Bynum v. Patty, 207 Ark. 1084, 184 S.W.2d 254 (1944).
Where a cause is appealed to the circuit court from the county court, the former court obtains jurisdiction to the same extent as if it had been originally brought in that court and should enter final judgment therein and remand the same to the county court with directions to enter that judgment. Batesville v. Ball, 100 Ark. 496, 140 S.W. 712 (1911).
The circuit court has jurisdiction to review on appeal the action of the county court relative to the organization of a road district. Horn v. Baker, 140 Ark. 168, 215 S.W. 600 (1919).
If the county court had jurisdiction to hear a contest over the result of a stock law election, which was not decided, a judgment of that court dismissing a petition attacking the legality of the election was not void on its face, however erroneous it may have been, and a review of it must be by appeal to the circuit court and not by certiorari. Patterson v. Adcock, 157 Ark. 186, 248 S.W. 904 (1923).
The circuit court had jurisdiction to try a case on appeal by a taxpayer from a judgment of the county court allowing a claim against the county and the fact that a warrant had been issued and paid before the case was tried in the circuit court was immaterial. McLain v. Miller County, 180 Ark. 828, 23 S.W.2d 264 (1930), superseded by statute as stated in, Lott v. Circuit Court, 328 Ark. 596, 945 S.W.2d 922 (1997).
Appeals from the county court to the circuit court shall be granted as a matter of right. Watts & Sanders v. Myatt, 216 Ark. 660, 226 S.W.2d 800 (1950).
The chancery court had no jurisdiction to order repayment of a claim allowed by the county judge in paying dues to the Arkansas Association of County Judges; in the absence of fraud, the remedy was by appeal to the circuit court. Ark. Ass'n of County Judges v. Green, 232 Ark. 438, 338 S.W.2d 672 (1960).
Exclusive Jurisdiction.
The chancery court has exclusive jurisdiction of all cases involving matters of child support; neither the municipal nor circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with chancery court to enforce an agreement for child support. Boren v. Boren, 318 Ark. 378, 885 S.W.2d 852 (1994).
Circuit court cannot decide a claim of breach of contract or otherwise enforce a child support agreement since under subsection (a) of this section it does not have concurrent jurisdiction. Granquist v. Randolph, 326 Ark. 809, 934 S.W.2d 224 (1996).
Regardless of the context in which a support order is entered, whether divorce, paternity, abandonment, or any other situation, a trial court has the power to enter a child-support order; thus, where a father was held in contempt for failure to pay support, and appealed, even though the trial court did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage because there was no corroboration of residence, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter contempt orders for the father's failure to pay support. Rogers v. Rogers, 80 Ark. App. 430, 97 S.W.3d 429 (2003).
Original Jurisdiction.
The correct method of ascertaining the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the circuit courts is to see what cases or classes of cases are confided by the Constitution exclusively to the jurisdiction of other tribunals, and the great residuum belongs exclusively, or concurrently, to the circuit courts. State v. Devers, 34 Ark. 188 (1879).
Jurisdiction to hear and determine contests of elections for a city office, not being vested elsewhere, is in the circuit court. Whittaker v. Watson, 68 Ark. 555, 60 S.W. 652 (1901); Doherty v. Cripps, 82 Ark. 529, 102 S.W. 394 (1907).
If the law does not expressly vest jurisdiction to hear an action, it falls within the general jurisdiction of the circuit courts. State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Sams, 81 Ark. 39, 98 S.W. 955 (1906); Patterson v. Adcock, 157 Ark. 186, 248 S.W. 904 (1923).
Circuit court has jurisdiction to determine liability of county depository for interest on county funds. Price v. Madison County Bank, 90 Ark. 195, 118 S.W. 706 (1909).
Where the trial court accepted appellant's plea for capital-felony murder on a Sunday in violation of § 16-10-114, the statutory violation did not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the matter; further, a petition for writ of habeas corpus was not the proper method with which to claim a statutory violation. Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006).
—Jurisdictional Amount.
The circuit court has jurisdiction of mechanics' liens enforceable against land regardless of the amount. White v. Millbourne, 31 Ark. 486 (1876).
Where no one of several debts sued on exceeds the sum of one hundred dollars, the plaintiff cannot combine them so as to give the circuit court jurisdiction. Mannington v. Young, 35 Ark. 287 (1880).
Circuit courts have jurisdiction in tort action in the nature of a fraud without regard to the amount. Bagley v. Shoppach, 43 Ark. 375 (1884).
In actions for damages to personal property, jurisdiction is determined by the damages asked. Little Rock, Miss. R. & Tex. R.R. v. Manees, 44 Ark. 100 (1884).
Since garnishment is only an attachment of the debt, the jurisdiction of the court over the funds in the hands of the garnishee is not dependent upon the amount of the indebtedness. Moore v. Kelley, 47 Ark. 219, 1 S.W. 97 (1886).
A complaint for breach of contract alleging damages sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction is a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, and in the absence of a special plea or charge that the allegation was illusive and fraudulent, the court could correctly assume jurisdiction. Neale v. Smith, 61 Ark. 564, 33 S.W. 1058 (1896).
If the question is raised whether or not the amount claimed was a lien on real estate, the circuit court has jurisdiction without regard to the amount involved. Sanders v. Brown, 65 Ark. 498, 47 S.W. 461 (1898); Naylor v. McNair, 92 Ark. 345, 122 S.W. 662 (1909).
If a demurrer (now abolished) is sustained to one of two paragraphs of complaint and the remaining paragraph demands an amount less than the jurisdictional requirement, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to proceed. Harris-Damon Lumber Co. v. Craddock, 72 Ark. 334, 80 S.W. 228 (1904).
Complaint which alleged that party possessed title to a vehicle valued at $3,900.00 which she obtained under divorce decree and which was being unlawfully detained was a replevin action properly within the jurisdiction of the county circuit court, and, as a consequence, a writ of prohibition did not lie. Bonnell v. Smith, 322 Ark. 141, 908 S.W.2d 74 (1995).
—Misdemeanors.
Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace in misdemeanor cases. Walker v. State, 35 Ark. 386 (1880); McClure v. State, 37 Ark. 426 (1881).
It is not in the power of the legislature, under the provisions of the Constitution, to deprive the circuit courts of all original jurisdiction of misdemeanors. Naylor v. McNair, 92 Ark. 345, 122 S.W. 662 (1909).
—Petitions.
The issue of the sufficiency of a petition for a local option election is one over which chancery court has no jurisdiction. Zaruba v. Phillips, 320 Ark. 199, 895 S.W.2d 544 (1995).
Proceedings on Appeal.
Appeals from final orders and judgments of the county courts are tried de novo. Marion County v. Estes, 79 Ark. 504, 96 S.W. 165 (1906); Thomas v. Burke, 91 Ark. 595, 121 S.W. 1060 (1909); Jones v. Coffin, 96 Ark. 332, 131 S.W. 873 (1910); Thornton v. Allen, 101 Ark. 106, 141 S.W. 499 (1911); Stephens v. School Dist., 104 Ark. 145, 148 S.W. 504 (1912).
Circuit court may permit record to be amended so as to show allowance of appeal by the county court. Drainage Dist. v. Rolfe, 110 Ark. 374, 161 S.W. 1034 (1913).
The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an appeal where the original papers were not filed before the trial date, inasmuch as certified copies had been filed and there was no showing that appellees were in any manner prejudiced. Woollard v. Circuit Court, 222 Ark. 287, 258 S.W.2d 886 (1953).
—Petitioners for Drainage District.
A petitioner may appeal to the circuit court from an order of the county court refusing a petition for the establishment of a drainage district. Sharum v. Fry, 95 Ark. 385, 129 S.W. 818 (1910).
The petitioners, as well as the remonstrants, have a right to appeal from an order of the county court adverse to their interests and relative to the formation of a drainage district. Collins v. Stewart, 117 Ark. 4, 173 S.W. 824 (1915).
—School Districts.
Where it is sought to annex certain territory of one school district to another, the district whose territory is to be annexed may appeal from a judgment of the county court to the circuit court without its board of directors first appearing in the county court. School Dist. v. Rural Special School Dist., 128 Ark. 383, 194 S.W. 241 (1917).
School district properly appealed from an order approving a bond. Hulbert Special Sch. Dist. v. Cooper, 180 Ark. 29, 20 S.W.2d 322 (1929).
—Taxpayers.
If a county court has proceeded irregularly in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction to make a contract for the building of a courthouse, citizens, residents, and taxpayers have a remedy to correct that irregularity by becoming parties to the proceeding and appealing to the circuit court, but a bill in equity will not lie to restrain the making of such a contract for irregularity only. Bowman v. Frith, 73 Ark. 523, 84 S.W. 709 (1905).
One who is a citizen of the county and taxpayer in a drainage district and who is interested in an order of the county court allowing a claim against the district is entitled to appeal therefrom. Huddleston v. Coffman, 90 Ark. 219, 118 S.W. 1010 (1909).
One who is a citizen or resident and a taxpayer has the right to appeal from an order of allowance against the county, whether he intervenes before or after the allowance is made. Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co., 101 Ark. 246, 142 S.W. 154 (1911).
A citizen and taxpayer may appeal from an order designating a county depository. Casey v. Independence County, 109 Ark. 11, 159 S.W. 24 (1913).
Where the county court made an order establishing a road through certain lands, a citizen and taxpayer owning lands taken by the road may make himself a party to the proceedings and appeal from the order of the court. McMahan v. Ruble, 135 Ark. 83, 204 S.W. 746 (1918).
A taxpayer is authorized to appeal from an order of the county court allowing a claim against the county and confirming a sale of county property in satisfaction thereof without becoming a party to the proceedings. Wright v. LeCroy, 184 Ark. 837, 44 S.W.2d 355 (1931).
The county court, in passing on a claim presented to it, acts in a judicial capacity. Any citizen of any county, city, or town may institute suit in behalf of himself and others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever, and their proper remedy is to appeal to the circuit court. Ark. Ass'n of County Judges v. Green, 232 Ark. 438, 338 S.W.2d 672 (1960).
Cited: Norman v. Fife, 61 Ark. 33, 31 S.W. 740 (1895); Morgan v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 106 Ark. 74, 152 S.W. 1023 (1912); Lee v. McNeil, 308 Ark. 114, 823 S.W.2d 837 (1992).