Ark. Code Ann. » Title 25 Chapter 16
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-16-704 (2026)

Representation of state interests in Supreme Court — Writs of quo warranto

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The Attorney General shall attend the several sittings of the Supreme Court and shall maintain and defend the interests of the state in all matters before that tribunal.
  2. He or she shall have full power to issue writs of quo warranto in all cases where the writs should properly issue.
  3. If he or she shall fail to attend any term of the Supreme Court in which cases may be pending for or against the state, shall fail to prosecute or defend the cases, and shall fail to furnish a substitute, the court may appoint a substitute. The attorney so appointed shall receive, as a compensation for his or her services for attending any term of the court and prosecuting or defending the suits, the sum of two hundred dollars ($200), to be paid out of the salary of the Attorney General on the certificate of the court.

History. Acts 1843, § 2, p. 117; 1857, § 6, p. 117; C. & M. Dig., §§ 4527, 4528; Pope's Dig., §§ 5584, 5585; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 12-713, 12-714.

Cross References. State of Arkansas not to be made defendant in any of its courts, Ark. Const., Art. 5, § 20.

Case Notes

Quo Warranto.

An injunction suit could not be transferred into an action of quo warranto or of information in the nature of quo warranto in the absence of intervention by the state through the Attorney General. Moody v. Lowrimore, 74 Ark. 421, 86 S.W. 400 (1905).

Cited: Ashcraft v. State, 141 Ark. 361, 222 S.W. 376 (1919).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–1992 · leading case: State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead Cnty. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 779 S.W.2d 169 (Ark. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Robinson v. Craighead Cnty. Bd. of Election Commissioners, 779 S.W.2d 169 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 25-16-704 (1987); Cummings v.”
Lee v. McNeil, 823 S.W.2d 837 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 4× “The only practical method of enforcing this right is the remedy of mandamus. Quo warranto is not appropriate because it is the State that initiates that proceeding under these circumstances, not an individual such as in this 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.