Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (2026)
[Repealed.]
✓ current as of May 2026
Publisher's Notes. This section, concerning fee caps for attorneys appointed to represent indigent persons, was repealed by Acts 1993, No. 1193, § 20. The section was derived from Acts 1977, No. 246, § 1; 1985, No. 1076, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 43-2419. For current law, see § 14-20-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1990–1995 · leading case: State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993).
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
Arnold v. Kemp, 813 S.W.2d 770 (Ark. 1991). “This case involves the constitutionality of Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987), which relates to the legislative limitation of expenses and fees imposed upon court-appointed attorneys for indigent clients accused of crime.”
Coulter v. State, 804 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1991). “The trial court denied the motion but after further discussion decided to take it under advisement.”
Findley v. State, 818 S.W.2d 242 (Ark. 1991). “FEE CAP Findley’s final assertion of error is that the $ 1,000 attorney’s fee limitation, set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987), is unconstitutional.”
Lynch v. Blagg, 847 S.W.2d 32 (Ark. 1993). “2d 770 (1991), wherein we declared the statutory fee "caps" contained in Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) were unconstitutional; we further stated that, under the circumstances in that case, court-appointed attorneys are entitled to "just compensation" to reasonably compensate…”
Wainwright v. State, 823 S.W.2d 449 (Ark. 1992). “At the time petitioner was tried Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) set out certain limitations on expenses and fees imposed for court-appointed attorneys for indigent clients accused of criminal offenses.”
Pickens v. State, 783 S.W.2d 341 (Ark. 1990). “The last issue we reach concerns the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (2)(b) (1987) which sets a $1,000.”
State v. Indep. Cnty., 850 S.W.2d 842 (Ark. 1993). “In the course of that representation Arnold and Allen declined to proceed further, maintaining that they could not render effective assistance because of the limitation on out-of-pocket expenses and fees mandated under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987). They were found to be in…”
State v. Crittenden Cnty., 896 S.W.2d 881 (Ark. 1995). “2d 770 (1991), this court held that the statutory “fee caps” set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (b) (1987) (repealed by Act 1193 of 1993) unconstitutional in their denial to appointed counsel of just compensation and equal protection of the laws.”
State v. Campbell, 851 S.W.2d 434 (Ark. 1993). “The issues raised are the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987), the responsibility of the state or county to pay those fees and expenses in excess of the statutory limits, and what constitutes “just compensation” for the taking of an attorney’s property in the…”
Wainwright v. Norris, 836 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. Ark. 1993). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108(b)(2) [Repealed by Acts 1993, No.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(a) — 1 case
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(b) — 3 cases
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
Coulter v. State, 804 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1991). “The trial court denied the motion but after further discussion decided to take it under advisement.”
State v. Campbell, 851 S.W.2d 434 (Ark. 1993). “The issues raised are the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987), the responsibility of the state or county to pay those fees and expenses in excess of the statutory limits, and what constitutes “just compensation” for the taking of an attorney’s property in the…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(b)(2) — 2 cases
Coulter v. State, 804 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1991). “The trial court denied the motion but after further discussion decided to take it under advisement.”
Wainwright v. Norris, 836 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. Ark. 1993). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108(b)(2) [Repealed by Acts 1993, No.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(c) — 1 case
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(c)(1) — 1 case
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(c)(2) — 1 case
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-92-108(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Post, 845 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1993). “Jones' award and the state was liable for the remainder under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-92-108 (1987) and § 14-20-102 (Supp.”
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.