A civil action for the following causes shall be brought in the county where the cause, or some part of the cause, arose:
A civil action for the recovery of a fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed by a statute, except that when the violation of the statute for which the claim is made was committed on a watercourse or road that is the boundary of two (2) counties, the civil action may be brought in either county;
A civil action against a public officer for an act done by him or her in virtue or under color of his or her office, or for a neglect of official duty; and
A civil action upon the official bond of a public officer, except as provided in § 16-106-101.
History.
Civil Code, § 85; C. & M. Dig., § 1165; Pope's Dig., § 1387; A.S.A. 1947, § 27-602; Acts 2015, No. 830, § 2.
Publisher's Notes.
This section was formerly codified as § 16-60-102. Former § 16-60-103 has been amended and renumbered as § 16-60-104.
Amendments.
The 2015 amendment substituted “civil action” for “action” throughout the section; substituted “violation of the statute” for “offense” in (1); deleted “and 16-106-104” at the end of (3); and made stylistic changes.
Case Notes
Applicability.
This section refers to an action for the benefit of the public and not to private actions against a wrongdoer. Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry. v. Miller, 103 Ark. 151, 146 S.W. 485 (1912).
Section 16-106-101(d) fixes the venue in actions against state officers, and is not changed by this section which fixes the venue in actions against other public officers except state officers, on the ground of “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” as § 16-106-101(d) refers to actions against state officers, and this section refers to actions against public officers. Downey v. Toler, 214 Ark. 334, 216 S.W.2d 60 (1948).
Subdivision (1) applies only to penal actions instituted by the state for the benefit of the public and not to private actions against a wrongdoer violating § 4-75-201 et seq.Concrete, Inc. v. Arkhola Sand & Gravel Co., 228 Ark. 1016, 311 S.W.2d 770 (1958).
Action against Public Officer.
A suit against a sheriff, his deputies, and bondsmen for killing plaintiff's husband must be brought in the county where the cause of action arose. Edwards v. Jackson, 176 Ark. 107, 2 S.W.2d 44 (1928).
Alleged cause of action against county clerk for unlawfully issuing a marriage license in that county was improperly brought in another county. Ragan v. Cox, 208 Ark. 809, 187 S.W.2d 874, 1945 Ark. LEXIS 499 (1945).
An action against a town marshal, who was also a deputy sheriff, for damages for an alleged unjustifiable assault in the course of making an arrest is within the province of this section. Moncus v. Raines, 210 Ark. 30, 194 S.W.2d 1 (1946).
A court reporter is not a public officer and this section does not govern the jurisdiction of cause brought against him for an act done under color of office, or for neglect of official duty. Wirges v. Arrington, 239 Ark. 1047, 396 S.W.2d 292 (1965).
Action on Official Bond.
An action on a bond of a county treasurer could be maintained only in the county of which he was treasurer. State v. American Sur. Co., 187 Ark. 673, 62 S.W.2d 13 (1933).
Official Act.
The official act complained of must be official conduct resulting in or causing the injury. Williams v. Priddy, 188 Ark. 137, 64 S.W.2d 553 (1933).
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. Harkey, 45 S.W.3d 829 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 28דThe equitable relief sought could only be obtained in chancery court in Pulaski County under venue set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 and Ark.Code Ann.”
Willis v. Crumbly, 242 S.W.3d 600 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 6דArk. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Repl. 2005); Willis v.”
Willis v. Circuit Court of Phillips Cnty., 27 S.W.3d 372 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 3דBecause this action involved state officials, venue was properly established in Pulaski County in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (1987). The Pulaski County Circuit Court held a hearing on May 3, 2000, and determined that Valley was ineligible to be a candidate for…”
Valley v. Bogard, 28 S.W.3d 269 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 2דIV Evidence of Ineligibility For his final point, Valley urges that the evidence of his ineligibility was insufficient at best. He correctly asserts that Willis had the burden of proving that he did not reside in District 99 for a period of one year prior to the general election.”
Daniels v. Weaver, 240 S.W.3d 95 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 3ד” See also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Repl. 2005) (all actions against state officers on account of their official acts must be brought in Pulaski County); Valley v.”
Hankins v. McElroy, 855 S.W.2d 310 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2דHad DF&A denied appellant’s request for payment under the bond, appellant could then have sought review of DF&A’s actions by seeking judicial review in Pulaski County where state agencies are subject to suit pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 See Sikes v. General Publishing…”
McCutchen v. Arkansas State Police, 307 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. 2009). “Because § 16-60-105 does not apply, venue is proper “in the county in which the seat of government is situated” pursuant to § 16-60-103. Here, the seat of the Arkansas government is situated in Pulaski County.”
Nichols v. Norris, 80 S.W.3d 331 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 6דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Michie 1987).”
Arkansas Game & Fish Com'n v. Mills, 265 S.W.3d 760 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 7דAGFC filed a motion to dismiss, contending Ark.Code Ann. § 16-60-103 & Ark.Code Ann.”
Phifer v. SEECO Inc., 2014 Ark. App. 211 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5ד” The trial court’s order offered no further comment or explanation. In this appeal, the Phifers argue that the trial court erred in granting SEECO and Southwestern’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.”
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. Mills, 265 S.W.3d 760 (2007). · cites it 3דAGFC filed a motion to dismiss, contending Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 & Ark. Code Ann.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103(3) — 7 cases
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. Harkey, 45 S.W.3d 829 (Ark. 2001). “The equitable relief sought could only be obtained in chancery court in Pulaski County under venue set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 and Ark.Code Ann.”
Willis v. Crumbly, 242 S.W.3d 600 (Ark. 2006). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Repl. 2005); Willis v.”
Willis v. Circuit Court of Phillips Cnty., 27 S.W.3d 372 (Ark. 2000). “Because this action involved state officials, venue was properly established in Pulaski County in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (1987). The Pulaski County Circuit Court held a hearing on May 3, 2000, and determined that Valley was ineligible to be a candidate for…”
Daniels v. Weaver, 240 S.W.3d 95 (Ark. 2006). “” See also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Repl. 2005) (all actions against state officers on account of their official acts must be brought in Pulaski County); Valley v.”
Nichols v. Norris, 80 S.W.3d 331 (Ark. 2002). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (3) (Michie 1987).”
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.