Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-201 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026

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

This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Arkansas Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1977”.

History. Acts 1977, No. 546, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-4501.

Case Notes

Proceedings.

Even though the director for the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board sent the tobacco company an offer of settlement “recommending” a $500 fine for the tobacco company which gave unlawful rebates to retailers, and the company accepted the offer, the defense of agency estoppel was not preserved, and because the evidence established that the company had paid rebates to at least 28 Arkansas retail establishments, it was not arbitrary or capricious for the Board to reject the “recommendation” and impose a $28,000 fine, and suspension of the company's permit for six months. H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis, 353 Ark. 797, 120 S.W.3d 79 (2003).

Cited: Wometco Servs., Inc. v. Gaddy, 272 Ark. 452, 616 S.W.2d 466 (1981).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2004–2010 · leading case: Arkansas Tobacco Control Bd. v. Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co., 199 S.W.3d 656 (Ark. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arkansas Tobacco Control Bd. v. Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co., 199 S.W.3d 656 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 6× “§§ 26-57-201 et seq. (Repl.1997). As Santa Fe is a licensed wholesaler of cigarettes in Arkansas, it sells cigarettes to retailers in Arkansas, who then sell the cigarettes to consumers.”

McLane S., Inc. v. Arkansas Tobacco Control Bd., 375 S.W.3d 628 (Ark. 2010). “” In my opinion, a cooperative acting as you described would be licensed as a wholesaler under § 26-57-201 et seq., however, for purposes of A.”

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.