Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-207 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Civil Procedure, 12 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 135.

Case Notes

In General.

Pursuant to subsection (a), an action for declaratory judgment is a proper method for testing the validity of rules which, in the plaintiff's view, threaten future damage. McEuen Burial Ass'n v. Arkansas Burial Ass'n Bd., 298 Ark. 572, 769 S.W.2d 415 (1989).

Beneficiaries of a state Medicaid program were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing their declaratory judgment action in the circuit court because any irreparable harm to the beneficiaries warranted application of the futility exception; also, subsection (d) of this section provided the beneficiaries the statutory scheme for seeking a declaratory judgment in lieu of pursuing the exhaustion of remedies. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ledgerwood, 2017 Ark. 308, 530 S.W.3d 336 (2017).

Purpose.

Declaratory actions are intended to supplement rather than replace ordinary causes of action. Regional Care Facilities, Inc. v. Rose Care, Inc., 322 Ark. 780, 912 S.W.2d 406 (1995).

Applicability.

Declaratory relief is not proper when the identical questions involved in the declaratory judgment proceeding are already at issue between the parties in a pending action and declaratory judgment procedure is not proper as a means of trying a case, or various issues involved in it, by piecemeal. Regional Care Facilities, Inc. v. Rose Care, Inc., 322 Ark. 780, 912 S.W.2d 406 (1995).

Where a church and its affiliated university sought an exception from certification requirements of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, the church could have brought a declaratory action to determine whether or not the exception for programs that were predominantly religious in nature applied; thus, the church was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Axley v. Hardin, 353 Ark. 529, 110 S.W.3d 766 (2003).

Motion to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds filed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) and its director as to declaratory relief sought against DHS and the director in his official capacity was properly denied under this section, which waives sovereign immunity when a declaratory judgment is sought regarding the validity or applicability of an agency rule; this section allowed school districts to challenge a rule requiring licensed child-care centers to have general liability insurance. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Fort Smith Sch. Dist., 2015 Ark. 81, 455 S.W.3d 294 (2015).

Circuit court properly denied a motion to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds filed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) and its director as to the injunctive relief sought against DHS and the director in his official capacity; where there is a permitted challenge to a rule under the declaratory-judgment statute, a request for injunctive relief is simply a means to enforce the judgment, should the circuit court determine that the rule is invalid or inapplicable. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Fort Smith Sch. Dist., 2015 Ark. 81, 455 S.W.3d 294 (2015).

Circuit court had no subject-matter jurisdiction to review the licensing decision of the Medical Marijuana Commission (MMC) concerning cultivation facilities because (1) under § 25-15-212, no “adjudication” as defined by statute occurred at the agency level and the MMC's decision was not quasi-judicial, and (2) under this section, the court only had jurisdiction to resolve a rule's validity or applicability, but the invalidity of a MMC rule was not pled, the “applicability” of a rule was not contested, and no declaration of whether a rule should have been applied was sought; instead, the complaints sought a declaration that the “application” of the MMC rules was improper, unfair, and arbitrary. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901 (2018).

A broad reading of “applicability”, as to permit circuit courts to determine whether the agency complied with the rules, would largely eliminate the notice and hearing requirements of the Arkansas Adminstrative Procedure Act and would swallow § 25-15-212 entirely. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901 (2018).

Supreme Court of Akansas did not address whether Rule 19 of the Medical Marijuana Commission conveyed subject-matter jurisdiction to the circuit court; although that rule provided that a denial of a cultivation license may be appealed to the circuit court, the issue was not ripe because the appellees had not been issued denial letters subsequent to an adjudication. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901 (2018).

Administrative Remedies.

It seems to be now a recognized doctrine that requires administrative relief to be sought before resorting to declaratory procedure, wherever administrative relief is afforded and this requirement is not one merely requiring the initiation of administrative procedure, but the administrative procedure must be pursued to its final conclusion before resort may be had to the court for declaratory relief. Regional Care Facilities, Inc. v. Rose Care, Inc., 322 Ark. 780, 912 S.W.2d 406 (1995).

Applicant was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking a declaratory order from the court for injunctive relief. Regional Care Facilities, Inc. v. Rose Care, Inc., 322 Ark. 780, 912 S.W.2d 406 (1995).

This section does not allow one to file a declaratory judgment action in court without first exhausting his administrative remedies before the Game and Fish Commission. Ford v. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n, 335 Ark. 245, 979 S.W.2d 897 (1998).

Where the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board charged a company with violating the anti-rebating provisions of the Arkansas Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, § 4-75-708(b), the company was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before seeking declaratory relief in the form of preliminary and permanent injunctions in the circuit court; moreover, company's constitutional argument could be raised and developed at the administrative level. McLane S., Inc. v. Davis, 80 Ark. App. 30, 90 S.W.3d 16 (2002).

Appellants were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before they filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of § 200.3.2 of the Minimum Licensing Standards for Child Welfare Agencies because appellants, who would all be prohibited under the regulation from becoming foster parents because there were adult homosexuals in their homes, had shown that the threat of injury to them would justify having the regulation reviewed. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Howard, 367 Ark. 55, 238 S.W.3d 1 (2006).

Circuit court properly dismissed a physician's complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Arkansas State Medical Board where the statutes and regulations he sought to challenge did not completely bar any class of physicians from a certain act, and he failed to pursue the administrative remedy afforded him. Ahmad v. Beck, 2016 Ark. 30, 480 S.W.3d 166 (2016).

Ripeness.

When a rule (or declaratory order) has a direct effect on the day-to-day business operations of an insurance company and places that company in a dilemma regarding the full range of property and casualty insurance, the issue is a fit subject for judicial review and a petition for declaratory relief. Douglass v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 323 Ark. 105, 913 S.W.2d 277 (1996).

Venue.

Subsection (b) of this section, discussing venue for declaratory judgment actions brought to challenge the validity or applicability of an administrative agency rule, by its express terms applied only to such actions brought in the trial court. Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Harkey, 345 Ark. 279, 45 S.W.3d 829 (2001).

Cited: Statewide Health Coordinating Council v. Circuit Court, 287 Ark. 84, 696 S.W.2d 729 (1985); UHS of Ark., Inc. v. City of Sherwood, 296 Ark. 97, 752 S.W.2d 36 (1988); Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426, 327 Ark. 426, 938 S.W.2d 854 (1997); Doe v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 357 Ark. 413, 182 S.W.3d 107 (2004); Ark. Residential Assisted Living Ass'n v. Ark. Health Servs. Permit Comm'n, 364 Ark. 372, 220 S.W.3d 665 (2005); Quapaw Care & Rehab. v. Arkansas Health Servs. Permit Comm'n, 2009 Ark. 356, 325 S.W.3d 269 (2009).