Ark. Code Ann. » Title 19 Chapter 10
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The Arkansas State Claims Commission has jurisdiction over:
    1. A claim or action that is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under Arkansas Constitution, Article 5, § 20, from being litigated in a court of general jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided by law;
    2. A claim or action that solely addresses the receipting, processing, and reissuance of child support payments through the Arkansas Child Support Clearinghouse;
    3. A claim or action to contest eligibility, qualification, or election to serve as a member of the House of Representatives for the purpose of making a nonbinding recommendation on the claim or action to that chamber of the General Assembly; and
    4. A claim or action to recover reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation expenses reasonably incurred by a plaintiff who substantially prevails in an action under § 25-19-107 against the State of Arkansas or a state agency under the standard described in § 25-19-107(d)(1).
  2. The commission has no jurisdiction over a claim or action:
    1. Against a municipality, county, school district, or any other political subdivision of the state;
    2. Arising under:
      1. The Workers' Compensation Law, § 11-9-101 et seq.;
      2. The Division of Workforce Services Law, § 11-10-101 et seq.;
      3. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Act, Acts 1973, No. 427;
      4. The Arkansas Public Employees' Retirement System Act, Acts 1957, No. 177;
      5. The State Police Retirement System Act, § 24-6-201 et seq.; or
      6. Laws providing for old age assistance grants, child welfare grants, blind pensions, or any laws of a similar nature;
    3. Against the state for repayment of child support, except in cases in which the underlying support order is set aside as void ab initio by the court and the child support paid was retained by the state as reimbursement for public assistance paid on behalf of a child;
    4. Brought by a member of the uniformed armed services against the Department of the Military, the State Militia, or any subdivision of the State Militia, if the claim or action arises out of the performance of the claimant's military duty;
    5. Brought against the Division of Community Correction for acts committed by a person while that person is subject to conditions of parole or probation under Arkansas law;
    6. Brought against the Division of Correction for acts committed by inmates while on authorized release from the Division of Correction;
    7. Brought against the Division of Youth Services for acts committed by juveniles released by the Division of Youth Services, whether or not the juvenile is subject to conditions of aftercare or probation; or
    8. For state tax refunds under § 26-18-507, a claim or action challenging tax assessments under § 26-18-406, or a claim or action challenging tax laws under Arkansas Constitution, Article 16, § 13.
  3. The commission shall not make an award for a claim or action that, as a matter of law, would be dismissed from a court of law for reasons other than sovereign immunity.

History. Acts 1949, No. 462, § 2; 1983, No. 470, § 2; 1983, No. 677, § 7; A.S.A. 1947, § 13-1402; Acts 1991, No. 1014, § 2; 1997, No. 1298, § 1; 2001, No. 1625, § 1; 2003, No. 1282, § 1; 2003, No. 1468, § 1; 2009, No. 440, § 1; 2013, No. 1478, § 1; 2019, No. 785, § 2; 2019, No. 910, §§ 494-496.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment by No. 785 rewrote the section.

The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Division of Workforce Services Law” for “Department of Workforce Services Law” in (b)(1)(A)(i) (b) [now (b)(2)(B)]; substituted “Department of the Military” for “State Military Department” in (b)(1)(A)(iii) (a) [now (b)(4)]; substituted “Division of Community Correction” for “Department of Community Correction” in (b)(1)(A)(iii) (b) [now (b)(5)]; and substituted “Division of Correction” for “Department of Correction” twice in (b)(1)(A)(iii) (c) [now (b)(6)].

Meaning of “this act”. Acts 1973, No. 427, codified as §§ 24-7-201 — 24-7-205, 24-7-301 — 24-7-305, 24-7-401 — 24-7-411, 24-7-501, 24-7-502, 24-7-601 — 24-7-604, 24-7-701, 24-7-702, 24-7-704 — 24-7-713, 24-7-715, 24-7-716.

Acts 1957, No. 177, codified as §§ 24-4-101 — 24-4-105, 24-4-201, 24-4-202, 24-4-205, 24-4-207 — 24-4-209, 24-4-301 — 24-4-304, 24-4-401, 24-4-402, 24-4-507, 24-4-508, 24-4-510 — 24-4-513, 24-4-601 — 24-4-603, 24-4-605, 24-4-606.

Amendments. The 2009 amendment added (d).

The 2013 amendment added (b)(1)(A)(iii) (d)

Research References

ALR.

Construction and Application of Parratt-Hudson Doctrine, Providing That Where Deprivation of Property Interest Is Occasioned by Random and Unauthorized Conduct of State Officials, Procedural Due Process Inquiry Is Limited to Issue of Adequacy of Postdeprivation Remedies Provided by State. 89 A.L.R.6th 1.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Public Finance, Claims Commission, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 461.

Case Notes

Actions Against Agents.

Where an outdoor advertising sign was removed without compensation by an agent contractor of the State Highway Commission, the owner of the sign was limited to a remedy in state claims against the commission. However, he could pursue an action for commission of intentional tort on the part of the contractor. Tri-B Adv., Inc. v. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n, 260 Ark. 227, 539 S.W.2d 430 (1976).

Constitutional Claims.

Because the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar plaintiff from litigating his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendant individually in state or federal courts of general jurisdiction, the Arkansas Claims Commission has no jurisdiction over the constitutional claim; the doctrine of claim preclusion did not bar the inmate's § 1983 action against a correctional officer because the inmate's claim against the officer in his individual capacity could not have been brought in the first action before the Commission because the Commission had no jurisdiction over that constitutional claim. Smith v. Johnson, 779 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2015).

Return of Property.

In a civil rights action, the plaintiff, who claimed that his house had been searched pursuant to warrant and that the officers had seized several personal items not covered by the warrant that were of sentimental value, was deprived of his property without due process for he could not be granted adequate relief under this section, since only the claim against one of the officers was subject to the jurisdiction of the State Claims Commission and even a judgment in plaintiff's favor against such an officer would not give the plaintiff the remedy he sought, the return of specific property. Bumgarner v. Bloodworth, 738 F.2d 966 (8th Cir. 1984).

Takings.

A landowner's due process and equal protection claims are satisfied under Arkansas law since the landowner, claiming a taking of property, may either seek prospective injunctive relief in chancery court or damages from the State Claims Commission. Austin v. Ark. State Hwy. Comm'n, 320 Ark. 292, 895 S.W.2d 941 (1995).

Tort Claims.

Arkansas Const., Art. 2, §§ 7 and 13 prevent the General Assembly from giving the State Claims Commission exclusive jurisdiction of tort claims against state employees or officers for their unlawful acts. Grimmett v. Digby, 267 Ark. 192, 589 S.W.2d 579 (1979).

Workers' Compensation Awards.

Where the State Claims Commission awarded payment to debtor as a result of her husband, a state employee, being killed in the line of duty within the scope of his employment, but did not, under this section, have jurisdiction to make such an award, the award was in the nature of an award under the Workers' Compensation Act and thus was not for the benefit of creditors in bankruptcy proceeding and under § 11-9-110 not subject to legal process. Dinning v. Wills, 4 B.R. 475 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1980).

Cited: Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 333 Ark. 159, 970 S.W.2d 198 (1998).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 970 S.W.2d 198 (Ark. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 970 S.W.2d 198 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 18× “Ark.Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (Supp.1997)(emphasis added).”
Ark. Oil & Gas Comm'n v. Hurd, 564 S.W.3d 248 (Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (b)(2)(A) does give the Claims Commission jurisdiction over claims which are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being litigated in a court of general jurisdiction.”
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 28 S.W.3d 842 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 4× “206 , 644 S.W.2d 594 . Likewise, Appellants do not qualify for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), which provides for permissive intervention (1) where a state statute confers a conditional right to intervene, or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action…”
Arkansas Oil & Gas Comm'n Lawrence Bengal, in His Off. Capacity as Dir. of the Arkansas Oil & Gas Comm'n & Swn Prod. (arkansas),llc v. J.R. Hurd Sara Smith Hurd Patricia Hurd Mcgregor Victoria Hurd Goebel David W. Killam Adrian Kathleenkillam Tracy Leigh Killam-dileo Hurd Enter., Ltd. & Killan Oil Co., Ltd., 2018 Ark. 397 (Ark. 2018). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (b)(2)(A) does give the Claims Commission jurisdiction over claims which are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity from being litigated in a court of general jurisdiction.”
Jacoby v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 962 S.W.2d 773 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 2× “The Department argued that the Claims Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over all suits against the State under Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (a) (Repl. 1994).”
Austin v. Arkansas State High. Comm'n, 895 S.W.2d 941 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2× “Suffice it to say that, in the circumstances of this case, the State Claims Commission has the jurisdiction to consider the Austins’ claim for damages against the state under Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (Repl. 1994) and such claim and hearing procedures are fully set out in Ark.”
Univ. of Arkansas for Med. Sciences v. Adams, 117 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (Supp. 2001); see e.”
Duit Constr. Co v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 2015 Ark. 462 (Ark. 2015). · cites it 3× “§ 19-10-204 (Supp. 2009); Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-211 (a) (Repl.”
Martin v. Smith, 560 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “(a) A mental health services provider, hospital, facility, community mental health center, or clinic is not subject to liability, suit, or a claim under § 19-10-204 on grounds that a mental health services provider did not prevent harm to an individual or to property caused by a…”
Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scien. v. Adams, 117 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (Supp.2001); see e.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204(b) — 1 case
Hanley v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 970 S.W.2d 198 (Ark. 1998). “Ark.Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (Supp.1997)(emphasis added).”
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.