Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-701 (2020)

Title

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Unfair Cigarette Sales Act”.

History. Acts 1951, No. 101, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-601.

Publisher's Notes. In regard to the Cigarette Tax Law [repealed], cigarettes are now taxed pursuant to the Arkansas Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1977, § 26-57-201 et seq.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Terms “trade discount” and “rebate” were unclear under existing Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, § 4-75-701 et seq., and the tobacco control board's regulations as to what was an allowed “trade discount” as opposed to a prohibited “rebate” were unclear; thus, the law was unconstitutionally vague under due process standards because it did not give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what was prohibited, i.e., of whether payments to the retailer were permitted “trade discounts” or prohibited “rebates.” Ark. Tobacco Control Bd. v. Sitton, 357 Ark. 357, 166 S.W.3d 550 (2004).

In General.

Neither “trade discounts” nor “rebates” are defined in the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, § 4-75-701 et seq.; however, the Arkansas Tobacco Control Board defines “rebates,” under Ark Tobacco Control Board Rules and Regs., § 9.1 (A). Ark. Tobacco Control Bd. v. Sitton, 357 Ark. 357, 166 S.W.3d 550 (2004)

Arkansas Tobacco Control Board's consideration of cooperative organizations as buying pools exempt from the anti-rebating provision, § 4-75-708, of the Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, § 4-75-701 et seq., was clearly wrong because a cooperative was considered a retailer under § 4-75-702(8) and, as such, was prohibited from providing rebates. McLane Southern, Inc. v. Ark. Tobacco Control Bd., 2010 Ark. 498, 375 S.W.3d 628 (2010).

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2010 · leading case: McLane Co. v. Davis, 110 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. 2003).
McLane Co. v. Davis, 110 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 8× “This legal dispute began in 1995 when McLane contacted the Department of Finance & Administration (DFA), requesting the DFA to repeal a regulation, Miscellaneous Tax Regulation 1988-2, that it promulgated pursuant to Arkansas's Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, Ark.Code Ann. §§…”
McLane S., Inc. v. Davis, 233 S.W.3d 674 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “1 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-701 et seq. (Repl. 2001 and Supp.”
H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis, 120 S.W.3d 79 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4× “That act is codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-701 et seq. and encompasses § 4-75-708.”
McLane Co. v. Weiss, 965 S.W.2d 109 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 2× “McLane brings this appeal, questioning the constitutionality of Arkansas’s Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-701 -713 (Repl. 1996), which was enacted in 1951.”
McLane S., Inc. v. Arkansas Tobacco Control Bd., 2010 Ark. 498, 375 S.W.3d 628. “McLane urges eight points on appeal, 1 specifically, that (1) the Board’s Opinion 2007-008 regarding patronage dividends was arbitrary and capricious; (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to grant declaratory relief on its claim that patronage dividends constituted rebates…”
McLane Co. v. Davis, 33 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 2× “, regarding the application of Arkansas’s Unfair Cigarette Sales Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-701 et seq., (R.epl.”
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.