Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 88
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 (2020)

Statute of limitations

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

Any civil action brought to enforce the provisions of this chapter may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state during a period of five (5) years commencing on the date of the occurrence of the violation or the date upon which the cause of action arises.

History. Acts 1993, No. 910, § 2.

Case Notes

Doctrine of Fraudulent Concealment.

Plaintiff's action was properly dismissed because his claims were clearly time-barred under §§ 16-56-111, 16-56-105, and this section, and by failing to allege when and how he discovered defendant's alleged fraud, plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), (f) of sufficiently pleading that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment saved his otherwise time-barred claims. Summerhill v. Terminix, Inc., 637 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2011).

Statute of Limitations.

Claims by mineral lessors, including under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, § 4-88-101 et seq., were properly dismissed as time-barred under § 16-56-105 and this section where they were brought more than five years after the leases were executed; fraud was not sufficiently shown for purposes of tolling. Hipp v. Vernon L. Smith & Assocs., 2011 Ark. App. 611, 386 S.W.3d 526 (2011).

In a creditor's breach of contract suit arising from cross-defaulted loan agreements, counterclaims asserting causes of action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices were time-barred. Bank of Am., N.A. v. JB Hanna, LLC, 766 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2014).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case: Crutchfield v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 121, 514 S.W.3d 499.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crutchfield v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 121, 514 S.W.3d 499. · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 (Repl. 2011). The ADTPA provides a private right of action to “any person” who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of a violation of the Act.”
Hipp v. Vernon L. Smith & Assocs., Inc., 386 S.W.3d 526 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 4-88-115 (Repl.2001), the statute of limitations for civil actions brought under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act is five years.”
Hampton v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 4:21-cv-00386 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 15, 2022). · cites it 2× “228 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 . 229 Id. 230 Id.”
Stewart, No. 4:24-cv-00905 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 16, 2025). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 . “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrong.”
Stewart, No. 4:24-cv-00905 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 21, 2025). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 . “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run upon the occurrence of the wrong.”
Dunn, No. 5:25-cv-05107 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 25, 2026). · cites it 2× “188, 192 (1989); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-115 . The alleged invalidity of Nelnet’s interest became known to Ms.”
Marshall v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 4:21-cv-01091 (E.D. Ark. May 26, 2022). “§ 4-88-115. This claim, however, cannot get over the second hurdle facing this lawsuit — preclusion.”
Leato v. W. Union Holdings, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-05020 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 5, 2019). “§ 4-88-115 . As noted above, the date of the last allegedly fraudulent act identified by the Plaintiffs is March 26, 2009.”
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.