Ark. Code Ann. § 26-57-255 (2020)
Arkansas Tobacco Control Board — Creation — Definition
History. Acts 1997, No. 1337, § 23; 2009, No. 785, § 26; 2013, No. 1273, § 28; 2015, No. 1100, § 64; 2015, No. 1235, § 19; 2019, No. 1071, § 24.
Amendments. The 2009 amendment substituted “Director of Arkansas Tobacco Control” for “Director of the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board” in (d)(2).
The 2013 amendment subdivided (d)(1) into present (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B); inserted (d)(2)(A); substituted “board members present at the regular or special meeting” for “full membership of the board” in (d)(2)(B); and deleted (d)(3).
The 2015 amendment by No. 1100 substituted “appointed by the Governor after consulting the Arkansas Medical Society and subject to confirmation by the Senate” for “selected from a list of at least eight (8) candidates supplied to the Governor by the Arkansas Medical Society” in (a)(3).
The 2015 amendment by No. 1235 substituted “wholesalers of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or e-liquid products” for “tobacco products wholesalers” in (a)(1); and substituted “retailers of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or e-liquid products” for “tobacco products retailers” in (a)(2).
The 2019 amendment rewrote the section.
Case Notes
Construction with Other Law.
Former § 26-57-256(a)(5) (see now § 26-57-255) clearly permitted the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board to conduct hearings regarding any permit or license in violation of the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, codified at § 4-75-701 et seq., and the Act encompasses § 4-75-708. H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis, 353 Ark. 797, 120 S.W.3d 79 (2003).
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).