Ark. Code Ann. » Title 17 Chapter 95
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-402 (2026)

Penalties — Injunction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. Every person who practices or attempts to practice medicine in any of its branches or who performs or attempts to perform any surgical operation for any person or upon any person within this state without first having complied with the provisions of the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, § 17-95-201 et seq., § 17-95-301 et seq., and § 17-95-401 et seq., shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
    2. Upon conviction he or she shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than one (1) month nor more than eleven (11) months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Each day of such a practice shall constitute a separate offense.
  2. The courts of record of this state having general equity jurisdiction are vested with jurisdiction and power to enjoin the unlawful practice of medicine in a proceeding by the Arkansas State Medical Board or any member thereof, or by any citizen of this state, in the county in which the alleged unlawful practice occurred or in which the defendant resides. The issuance of an injunction shall not relieve a person from criminal prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, § 17-95-201 et seq., § 17-95-301 et seq., and § 17-95-401 et seq., but the remedy of injunction shall be in addition to liability to criminal prosecution.
  3. It is declared that any person who practices or attempts to practice medicine in the State of Arkansas without first obtaining a license authorizing him or her to so practice medicine is a public nuisance, and it is declared that the illegal practice of medicine in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas is a public nuisance and is detrimental to the health, safety, security, and welfare of the people of the State of Arkansas.

History. Acts 1957, No. 198, §§ 19-21; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 72-619 — 72-621.

Case Notes

Chiropractors.

Chancery court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the question whether or not an injunction should issue to prevent chiropractors from practicing medicine, independent of any proceeding of chiropractic board to revoke the chiropractic licenses of the chiropractors. Miller v. Reed, 234 Ark. 850, 355 S.W.2d 169 (1962).

Dentists.

The administrative remedy available to the State Medical Board before the State Board of Dental Examiners on its claim that a dentist, with the aid of the State Board of Dental Examiners, engaged in the unlawful practice of medicine was inadequate and, therefore, the chancery court had jurisdiction over the matter. Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 338 Ark. 762, 1 S.W.3d 430 (1999).

Cited: Ark. State Medical Bd. v. Bolding, 324 Ark. 238, 920 S.W.2d 825 (1996).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1996–2005 · leading case: Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 1 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 1 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 6× “That allegation further raises the question of what forum decides the issue: chancery court pursuant to statutory authority granted under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-402 (b) and (c) (Repl.”
Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Bolding, 920 S.W.2d 825 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-402 (Repl. 1995), the Medical Board may seek an injunction in chancery court against any person who attempts to practice medicine without a license.”
Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “We conclude that under these circumstances the administrative remedy is inadequate and chancery court should retain jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under § 17-95-402(b) and (c). Id.; 1 S.W.3d at 434 (citations omitted).”
Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chirop. Exam., 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “We conclude that under these circumstances the administrative remedy is inadequate and chancery court should retain jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under § 17-95-402(b) and (c). Id.; 1 S.W.3d at 434 (citations omitted).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-402(b) — 3 cases
Teston v. Arkansas State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “We conclude that under these circumstances the administrative remedy is inadequate and chancery court should retain jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under § 17-95-402(b) and (c). Id.; 1 S.W.3d at 434 (citations omitted).”
Arkansas State Med. Bd. v. Schoen, 1 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. 1999). “That allegation further raises the question of what forum decides the issue: chancery court pursuant to statutory authority granted under Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-402 (b) and (c) (Repl.”
Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chirop. Exam., 206 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2005). “We conclude that under these circumstances the administrative remedy is inadequate and chancery court should retain jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under § 17-95-402(b) and (c). Id.; 1 S.W.3d at 434 (citations omitted).”
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.