Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (2026)

Administrative adjudication — Communication by decision maker

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or to make final or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law in any case of adjudication shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact with any person or party nor, in connection with any issue of law, with any party or his or her representative, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
An agency member may:
1. Communicate with other members of the agency; and
2. Have the aid and advice of one (1) or more personal assistants.

History. Acts 1967, No. 434, § 11; A.S.A. 1947, § 5-711.

Case Notes

Communication Permitted.

Subsection (b) of this section expressly allows communications between agency members. Ark. Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd. v. Fletcher, 326 Ark. 628, 933 S.W.2d 789 (1996).

Unsworn statements at public hearings and written communications read aloud into the record are not ex parte communications in violation of subsection (a). City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, 345 Ark. 249, 45 S.W.3d 805 (2001).

Communication Prohibited.

Subsection (a) of this section does not prohibit business relationships between agency members; it prohibits communications about issues relating to a particular adjudication proceeding. Ark. Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd. v. Fletcher, 326 Ark. 628, 933 S.W.2d 789 (1996).

Evidence.

Violations of subsection (a) must be established by proof of the existence and content of the alleged ex parte communications. Ark. Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd. v. Fletcher, 326 Ark. 628, 933 S.W.2d 789 (1996).

Procedural Irregularities.

Third party contacts made to Alcoholic Beverage Control Board members violated subsection (a) and, as procedural irregularities, were properly allowed by the trial court as additional testimony describing these contacts and were added to the record pursuant to § 25-15-212. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Div. v. Cox, 306 Ark. 82, 811 S.W.2d 305, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 343 (1991).

Specific Cases.

Physician failed to sufficiently develop or elicit any proof to support her allegations that she was denied a fair hearing and due process with regard to the State Medical Board's counsel also acting as prosecutor in the disciplinary proceedings. The physician did not attend the hearing before the Board or retain counsel, and her pleadings contained only speculative and conclusory allegations. McCormick v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 2017 Ark. App. 697, 545 S.W.3d 776 (2017).

Cited: Madden v. United States Assocs., 40 Ark. App. 143, 844 S.W.2d 374 (1992).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, 45 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, 45 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4× “However, as noted, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a) prohibits ex parte communications except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.”

Arkansas Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd. v. Fletcher, 933 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 40× “Resolution of this appeal requires an interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (Repl. 1996); our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark.”

Steven D. Mitchell v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm., State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “Section 25-15-209 states: (a) Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or to make final or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law in any case of adjudication shall not…”

Madden v. U.S. Assocs., 844 S.W.2d 374 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a) (Repl. 1992).”

Ark. State Plant Bd. v. McCarty, 576 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2019). “The Farmers subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging that (1) Arkansas Code Annotated § 2-16-206 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative appointment power to private industry, (2) Board members violated Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-209(a) by having…”

Nash v. Arkansas Elevator Saf. Bd., 259 S.W.3d 421 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a). Third, Nash claims that there was an additional procedural irregularity because the tapes of the September 23, 2004 hearing were blank, and consequently, a transcript of that hearing was unavailable.”

Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (2002); 5 Ill. Comp.”

Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Div. v. Cox, 811 S.W.2d 305 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 3× “” The specific statutory provision to which the judge referred is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a)(1987). That law in relevant part provides that ABC Board members or employees assigned to render a decision in any case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection…”

Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 1 (N.D. 2006). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (2002); 5 Ill.”

McCormick v. Ark. State Med. Bd., 545 S.W.3d 776 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “McCormick argues that, under the circumstances presented, she was denied a fair hearing with impartial adjudicators. In the Baxter County Circuit Court's order, it concluded that, although McCormick raised this issue to the Board, she failed to follow through with it by refusing…”

Arkansas Towing & Recovery Bd. v. A-1 Recovery Towing of North Little Rock, 2026 Ark. App. 102 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a) (Repl. 2024).”

Supermarket Express, L.L.C., t/a Lagoon v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2005). “630 ; Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 ; Conn. Gen. Stat.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209(a) — 4 cases

City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n, 45 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. 2001). “However, as noted, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a) prohibits ex parte communications except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.”

Arkansas Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd. v. Fletcher, 933 S.W.2d 789 (Ark. 1996). “Resolution of this appeal requires an interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (Repl. 1996); our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark.”

Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Div. v. Cox, 811 S.W.2d 305 (Ark. 1991). “” The specific statutory provision to which the judge referred is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209 (a)(1987). That law in relevant part provides that ABC Board members or employees assigned to render a decision in any case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-209(b) — 1 case

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.