Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (2026)
[Repealed.]
✓ current as of May 2026
Publisher's Notes. This section, concerning jurisdiction and judges of chancery courts, was repealed by Acts 2003, No. 1185, § 9. The section was derived from Acts 1875 (Adj. Sess.), No. 24, § 1, p. 25; C. & M. Dig., § 772; Pope's Dig., § 928; A.S.A. 1947, § 34-701; Acts 1989, No. 725, § 3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1991–2007 · leading case: Patterson v. Isom, 992 S.W.2d 792 (Ark. 1999).
Patterson v. Isom, 992 S.W.2d 792 (Ark. 1999). “He relies on section 9-10-101 (a) which provides: (1) The chancery court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile division of chancery court in cases and matters relating to paternity.”
Brewer v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (Repl.1998); Ark.”
State Off. of Child Support Enf't v. Willis, 59 S.W.3d 438 (Ark. 2001). “We give this argument little credence because we do not view what occurred in the 1992 divorce as either an adjudication of paternity or voluntary acknowledgment of paternity as required under the Paternity Code.”
Barnes v. Barnes, 843 S.W.2d 835 (Ark. 1992). “Subject matter jurisdiction Barnes relies on Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (a)(2) (Repl. 1991) and argues the Juvenile Division of Chancery Court was without subject matter jurisdiction, and the paternity case should have been transferred to Chancery Court.”
Martin v. Pierce, 257 S.W.3d 82 (Ark. 2007). “See Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-10-101 through 202 (Repl.”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). “In addressing appellant’s first point on appeal, we must examine the UCCJEA in conjunction with our paternity statutes found at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 et seq. (Repl. 2002).”
Hall v. Freeman, 936 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997). “Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-10-101 through 9-10-120 (Repl.”
Bean v. Off. of Child Support Enf't, 9 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2000). “§ 9-10-115 , provided: The court may, at any time, enlarge, diminish, or vacate any such order or judgment in the proceedings under this section and §§ 9-10-101 — 9-10-103, 9-10-105, 9-10-110, 9-10-111, and 9-10-117 — 9-10-119 as justice may require and on such notice to the…”
Akins v. Mofield, 132 S.W.3d 760 (Ark. 2003). “The Paternity Chapter, § 9-10-101, etseq. provides in pertinent part: 9-10-109.”
Hall v. Pulaski Cnty. Chancery Court, 898 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1995). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (a) (Repl. 1993).”
Hudson v. Kyle, 101 S.W.3d 202 (Ark. 2003). “We held: "The chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction under § 9-10-101(a)(2) to determine the issue of paternity.”
Benac v. State, 808 S.W.2d 797 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991). “Ark. Code Ann. §9-10-101 (a)(2) (Repl. 1991) is also part of Act 725 of 1989, and provides that “the chancery court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of paternity matters which arise during pendency of original proceedings brought under equity jurisdiction.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101(a)(1) — 2 cases
Patterson v. Isom, 992 S.W.2d 792 (Ark. 1999). “He relies on section 9-10-101 (a) which provides: (1) The chancery court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile division of chancery court in cases and matters relating to paternity.”
Hall v. Pulaski Cnty. Chancery Court, 898 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1995). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (a) (Repl. 1993).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101(a)(2) — 3 cases
Patterson v. Isom, 992 S.W.2d 792 (Ark. 1999). “He relies on section 9-10-101 (a) which provides: (1) The chancery court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile division of chancery court in cases and matters relating to paternity.”
Hudson v. Kyle, 101 S.W.3d 202 (Ark. 2003). “We held: "The chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction under § 9-10-101(a)(2) to determine the issue of paternity.”
Hall v. Pulaski Cnty. Chancery Court, 898 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1995). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (a) (Repl. 1993).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101(a)(l) — 2 cases
Rager v. Turley, 6 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999).
Hall v. Pulaski Cnty. Chancery Court, 898 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1995). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-101 (a) (Repl. 1993).”
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.