Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 17-81-103 (2026)
Effect on existing licenses
✓ current as of May 2026
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to invalidate or affect the license of any person holding a valid unrevoked or unsuspended license to practice chiropractic in this state on July 19, 1971. Persons holding valid licenses shall be subject to all provisions of this chapter except as provided in this chapter.
History. Acts 1971, No. 706, § 15; A.S.A. 1947, § 72-429.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2005–2005 · leading case: Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005).
Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “Furthermore, the evidence supported the Chiropractic Board’s conclusion that Teston performed “spinal manipulations” or “spinal adjustments,” defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 17-81-103 (7) as “a corrective force or passive movement .”
Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chirop. Exam., 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “" See § 17-81-103(6)(A). We note that the question is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding, but whether it would support the finding that was made.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-81-103(6)(A) — 1 case
Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chirop. Exam., 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “" See § 17-81-103(6)(A). We note that the question is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding, but whether it would support the finding that was made.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-81-103(7) — 1 case
Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chirop. Exam., 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “" See § 17-81-103(6)(A). We note that the question is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding, but whether it would support the finding that was made.”
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.