Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-210 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Derden, Survey of Arkansas Law: Administrative Law, 2 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 157.

Case Notes

In General.

—Noncompliance.

Where administrative board's findings did not state how the chiropractor's ad violated the board's regulation against deceptive advertising, but merely recited conclusions regarding the alleged violations, the case had to be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nesterenko v. Arkansas Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 76 Ark. App. 561, 69 S.W.3d 459 (2002).

Findings and Conclusions.

After an appeal of a sex offender adjudication was dismissed on the ground that it could not be concluded that appellant had received notice of the Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee's (SOSRA's) final decision, the court denied SOSRA's petition for rehearing because § 12-12-922(b)(6)(A) and (7)(A) required SOSRA to send “findings” to appellant, which proscription was consistent with the requirements of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act under subdivision (b)(2) of this section. Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening, 369 Ark. 290, 253 S.W.3d 901 (2007).

Although the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the “sale” of liquor permits, appellants never requested or offered any proposed findings on this issue and merely raised the contention in closing. Ark. Bev. Retailers Ass'n v. Langley, 2011 Ark. App. 259 (2011).

Because the Arkansas Health Services Permit Commission did not set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision to grant the transfer of a permit of approval, in accordance with subdivision (b)(2) of this section, the matter had to be remanded. Twin Rivers Health & Rehab, LLC v. Ark. Health Servs. Permit Comm'n, 2012 Ark. 15 (2012).

Because the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission failed in its obligation to make sufficient findings of fact relevant to the contested issue of what constituted the current model year, the supreme court could not determine whether the Commission had resolved that issue in conformity with the law. Voltage Vehicles v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 2012 Ark. 386, 424 S.W.3d 281 (2012).

—In General.

Subsection (b) does not require findings of fact to be couched in statutory language; it only requires that if such findings of fact are set forth in statutory language they be accompanied with a statement of the underlying facts. Fowler v. Ark. Real Estate Comm'n, 258 Ark. 292, 524 S.W.2d 230 (1975).

The State Banking Board is not required to make specific rulings except in its final decision. Bank of Waldron v. Scott County Bank, 267 Ark. 407, 590 S.W.2d 654 (1979).

In granting a bank charter, the State Banking Board could adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law after deciding to grant the charter. Citizens Bank v. Arkansas State Banking Bd., 271 Ark. 703, 610 S.W.2d 257 (1981).

The case law strictly interpreting subdivision (b)(2) of this section would only be applicable to those cases where notice and a hearing are both required. In contrast, given the informal nature of the branch bank application procedure, the state bank commissioner's findings of fact are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 23-32-1203(f). First Nat'l Bank v. Arkansas State Bank Comm'r, 301 Ark. 1, 781 S.W.2d 744 (1989).

Reviewing courts may not supply findings by weighing the evidence themselves, because that function is the responsibility of the administrative agency, which sees the witnesses as they testify. Green House, Inc. v. Ark. ABC Div., 29 Ark. App. 229, 780 S.W.2d 347 (1989).

—Adoption of Proposed Findings.

Failure to allow response to proposed findings of fact or hearing with regard thereto and adoption of proposed findings was not arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion where opposing counsel was provided with copy of proposed findings and failed to submit any modifications or comments or any findings of its own. Bank of Waldron v. Scott County Bank, 267 Ark. 407, 590 S.W.2d 654 (1979).

—Compliance.

Board's actions in 1993 were not tantamount to a reopening of the issue of fireman's retirement benefits granted in 1989; if fireman presented any information about, or evidence of, a work-related injury to the Board, it was not included in the record and the record did not contain any medical information provided by fireman to support a reopening nor any evidence of fraud, mistake, or misconception of facts that would have supported a reopening of the earlier claim, and thus Board did not fail to comply with this section because there was no adjudication on the merits. Earp v. Benton Fire Dep't, 52 Ark. App. 66, 914 S.W.2d 781 (1996).

—Noncompliance.

Case remanded to board for failure to make findings. Floyd v. Ark. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 251 Ark. 626, 473 S.W.2d 866 (1971); Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass’n Board v. Central Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 256 Ark. 846, 510 S.W.2d 872, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1550 (1974); Gordon v. Cummings, 262 Ark. 737, 561 S.W.2d 285 (1978).

The statutory requirement with respect to findings is primarily for the benefit of the reviewing courts and a failure to comply with this section is a minor and inconsequential matter. Independence Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Citizens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 265 Ark. 203, 577 S.W.2d 390 (1979).

Fireman's appeal from his termination from the city fire department was dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the civil service commission, in affirming the termination, made no written order nor any findings of fact or conclusions of law as required by § 14-51-308(e)(1)(B)(ii); accordingly, the matter was reversed and remanded so that the trial court could dismiss the appeal without prejudice, allowing the fireman to refile his appeal with the circuit court after the commission entered a written order. Lawrence v. City of Texarkana, 364 Ark. 466, 221 S.W.3d 370 (2006).

Remand of a police officer's application for retirement benefits was required because the administrative board had not made appropriate findings of fact as required by subdivision (b)(2) of this section. While the board's order had the labels “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law,” it was merely a procedural history of the administrative process and contained no information stating the facts upon which the board made its decision. Spriggs v. Ark. Local Police & Fire Retirement Bd., 2010 Ark. App. 197 (2010).

—Sufficiency.

Findings held to be insufficient to meet the requirements of this section. First State Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Arkansas Sav. & Loan Bd., 257 Ark. 599, 518 S.W.2d 507 (1975); First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass'n Bd., 257 Ark. 985, 521 S.W.2d 542 (1975).

Findings held to be sufficient. Holifield v. Ark. ABC Bd., 273 Ark. 305, 619 S.W.2d 621 (1981).

Where Pest Control Committee made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law which the Plant Board adopted, the Board had complied with the requirements of this Act. Wright v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992).

The statistics, facts, and conclusions of law recited by the agency and the commission were adequate to facilitate judicial review and to serve the other considerations set out in prior case law. Olsten Health Servs., Inc. v. Arkansas Health Servs. Comm'n, 69 Ark. App. 313, 12 S.W.3d 656 (2000).

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board's findings and conclusions went beyond a mere recitation of evidence and were, thus, adequate to permit the appellate court to undertake a proper review of the board's ruling. Vallaroutto v. ABC Bd., 81 Ark. App. 318, 101 S.W.3d 836 (2003).

Arkansas Board of Architecture's findings that an engineer was acting in the capacity of an architect without the benefit of a license was supported by sufficient facts relevant to the contested issue so that an appellate court could determine whether the board had resolved those issues in conformity with the law. Holloway v. Ark. State Bd. of Architects, 352 Ark. 427, 101 S.W.3d 805 (2003).

Where the Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners' findings of fact that a physical therapist's treatment of two patients consisted of “popping” their spines included sufficient details of the witnesses's testimony upon which the Board reasonably relied in reaching its decision, those findings were sufficient under subsection (b) of this section. Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 361 Ark. 300, 206 S.W.3d 796, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 960, 126 S. Ct. 480, 163 L. Ed. 2d 363 (2005).

Trial court erred in affirming the Board's order suspending appraiser's license as the Board did not make the necessary findings of fact to support its order that the appraiser had violated certain appraisal standards, as required by subdivision (b)(2) of this section. Chandler v. Arkansas Appraisers Licensing & Certification Bd., 92 Ark. App. 423, 214 S.W.3d 861 (2005).

Case was sent back to the Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners because the Board's final order imposing a fine on the chiropractors and placing them on probation for committing eight “unprofessional conduct” violations was not specific enough given the many issues in play and the voluminous agency record. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Currie, 2013 Ark. App. 612 (2013).

Case had to be remanded for the State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Professional Surveyors to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law because the findings and conclusions were insufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether several issues were resolved in conformity with the law; the Board made no comment regarding the truth or falsity of a landowner's assertions against a surveyor. Ark. State Bd. of Licensure for Prof'l Eng'rs & Prof'l Surveyors v. Callicott, 2016 Ark. App. 476, 503 S.W.3d 860 (2016).

Where an appraiser was sanctioned by the appraiser board for a deficient appraisal, although the findings did not explain precisely how the appraiser could have remedied the deficiencies in his appraisal, the law does not require this level of specificity; the findings explained the portion of the appraisal that the board deemed deficient, and by reviewing those findings, the court could determine whether the board conformed with the law. Reynolds v. Ark. Appraiser Licensing & Certification Bd., 2019 Ark. App. 587, 591 S.W.3d 837 (2019).

—Waiver.

The requirements of this section as to findings are primarily for the benefit of the reviewing court and cannot be waived by the parties. Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass’n Board v. Central Arkansas Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 256 Ark. 846, 510 S.W.2d 872, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1550 (1974); First State Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Arkansas Sav. & Loan Bd., 257 Ark. 599, 518 S.W.2d 507 (1975); Gordon v. Cummings, 262 Ark. 737, 561 S.W.2d 285 (1978).

Service.

Service of an order of an administrative agency can be by mail; there is no requirement that such service comply with the law regarding service of summons. Ark. Contractors Licensing Bd. v. F & F Concrete Prods., Inc., 297 Ark. 508, 763 S.W.2d 86 (1989).

Cited: Floyd v. Ark. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 248 Ark. 459, 451 S.W.2d 874 (1970); Sikes v. General Publishing Co., 264 Ark. 1, 568 S.W.2d 33 (1978); Jones v. Reed, 267 Ark. 237, 590 S.W.2d 6 (1979); Fouch v. State, Alcoholic Beverage Control Div., 10 Ark. App. 139, 662 S.W.2d 181, 1983 Ark. App. LEXIS 935 (1983); Brown v. Ark. State Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Licensing Bd., 336 Ark. 34, 984 S.W.2d 402 (1999).