Ark. Code Ann. » Title 27 Chapter 74
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 27-74-203 (2026)

Regulation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and devices in areas six hundred sixty feet (660') in width from the nearest edge of any right-of-way of any interstate, primary, or other state highway designated by the State Highway Commission shall be regulated in order to protect the public investment in these highways, to promote the public safety and welfare in the use of these highways, to encourage the recreational value of public travel, and to preserve the natural beauty along these highways.
  2. Therefore, no outdoor sign, display, or device shall be erected in these areas except as hereinafter provided and in accordance with rules promulgated by the commission.
  3. Any person whose business or property has been injured by a final adverse decision from the commission shall be entitled to a judicial hearing de novo in the circuit court of any county in which the person resides or does business or in the Pulaski County Circuit Court if the interests affected by the decision of the commission are constitutionally or statutorily preserved, or preserved by private agreement, so that their enforcement is a matter of right.

History. Acts 1967, No. 640, Art. 1, § 3; A.S.A. 1947, § 76-2504; Acts 2001, No. 800, § 1; 2019, No. 315, § 3169.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “rules” for “regulations” in (b).

Case Notes

De Novo Review Not Authorized.

Outdoor advertising company's failure to timely renew its permits for nonconforming billboards under § 27-74-204(b) properly resulted in the denial of the permits. The company was not entitled to de novo review of the denial of the permits under this section because the right to erect and maintain a billboard was not statutorily protected as required by that section. Lamar Co., LLC v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep't, 2011 Ark. App. 695, 386 S.W.3d 670 (2011).

Denial of Permit Upheld.

Substantial evidence supported the State Highway Commission's decision upholding the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department's denial of an outdoor advertiser's application for a permit to convert an existing billboard to an electronic message device given the deference owed to the Department's interpretation of the regulations adopted under the Arkansas Highway Beautification Act, § 27-74-101 et seq., and there was evidence from which to determine that the activity at the proposed sign site was transitory or temporary in nature and that the activity was not visible from the interstate. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep't v. RAM Outdoor Advertising, 2015 Ark. App. 713, 479 S.W.3d 51 (2015).

Cited: Files v. Arkansas State Hwy. & Transp. Dep't, 325 Ark. 291, 925 S.W.2d 404 (1996).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: Lamar Co. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 386 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lamar Co. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 386 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-74-203, 27-74-211. State law thus acknowledges the federal law’s limitations on the erection of billboards on scenic byways.”
Files v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 925 S.W.2d 404 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. §§ 27-74-203 , 27-74-211(b) (Repl.”
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 412 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “Lamar filed a petition and an amended petition for judicial review of the hearing officer’s decision. The circuit court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision based upon the record before the hearing officer.”
Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't v. Lamar Advantage Holding Co., 381 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. 2011). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to the regulations in effect at the time of Lamar’s application permit, “any existing device within 660 feet of the nearest right of way limit of any Interstate or Primary highway must have a permit issued by the Arkansas State Highway Department_Permits shall not be…”
Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't v. RAM Outdoor Advert., 2015 Ark. App. 713 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). “2010) impose a duty on the Arkansas State Highway Commission to regulate the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising devices and to adopt and promulgate regulations governing the issuance of permits for erecting outdoor advertising devices.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 27-74-203(a) — 2 cases
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 412 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “Lamar filed a petition and an amended petition for judicial review of the hearing officer’s decision. The circuit court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision based upon the record before the hearing officer.”
Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't v. RAM Outdoor Advert., 2015 Ark. App. 713 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). “2010) impose a duty on the Arkansas State Highway Commission to regulate the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising devices and to adopt and promulgate regulations governing the issuance of permits for erecting outdoor advertising devices.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 27-74-203(c) — 2 cases
Lamar Co. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 386 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-74-203, 27-74-211. State law thus acknowledges the federal law’s limitations on the erection of billboards on scenic byways.”
Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 133 S.W.3d 412 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “Lamar filed a petition and an amended petition for judicial review of the hearing officer’s decision. The circuit court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision based upon the record before the hearing officer.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 27-74-203(e) — 1 case
Lamar Co. v. Arkansas State High. & Transp. Dep't, 386 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-74-203, 27-74-211. State law thus acknowledges the federal law’s limitations on the erection of billboards on scenic byways.”
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.