When a petition is filed pursuant to this chapter, the court shall order a hearing to be held on the petition for the order of protection not later than thirty (30) days from the date on which the petition is filed or at the next court date, whichever is later.
A denial of an ex parte temporary order of relief does not deny the petitioner the right to a full hearing on the merits.
Service of a copy of the petition, the ex parte temporary order of protection, if issued, and notice of the date and place set for the hearing described in subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall be made upon the respondent:
At least five (5) days before the date of the hearing; and
In accordance with the applicable rules of service under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
If service cannot be made on the respondent, the court may set a new date for the hearing.
This section does not preclude the court from setting an earlier hearing.
Amendments.
The 2009 amendment, in (a), inserted (a)(2) and redesignated the remaining text accordingly; subdivided (b), inserted “of a copy of the petition, the ex parte temporary order of protection, if issued, and notice of the date and place set for the hearing described in subdivision (a)(1) of this section” in (b)(1), and inserted (b)(1)(B); and made minor stylistic changes.
Case Notes
Notice.
Because a protective order hearing was a special proceeding under Ark. R. Civ. P. 81, the notice procedures in subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section, and not Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(c), applied; therefore, because a respondent was timely served six days before the protective order hearing, the respondent's motion to set aside an order of protection was properly dismissed.
Wills v. Lacefield, 2011 Ark. 262 (2011).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Colton T. Kankey v. Bailey C. Quimby, 2020 Ark. App. 471 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020).
Colton T. Kankey v. Bailey C. Quimby, 2020 Ark. App. 471 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2דng reasons: (1) the affidavit supporting the petition for the order of protection did not meet the statutory requirements of the Domestic Abuse Act;1 (2) service of process was deficient; (3) the hearing on the petition was not held within the timeframe required by statute;2 (4)…”
Standridge v. State, 423 S.W.3d 677 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2דArkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-204 (Repl.2009) provides: (a)(1) When a petition is filed pursuant to this chapter, the court shall order a hearing to be held on the petition for the order of protection not later than thirty (30) days from the date on which the petition is…”
Duvall v. Liang, 2014 Ark. App. 359 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4דHe contends that such service of notice did not satisfy the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-204 (Repl. 2009), nor did it satisfy either Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Jones v. Sanchez, 2017 Ark. App. 461 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3דAnd § 9-15-204 provides no mechanism for setting aside intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays.”
Christopher Miller v. Keyunna Brown, 2025 Ark. App. 189 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4דIn Duvall, we held that an order of 2 protection was void where the attempted service did not comply with section 9-15-204 and Duvall was not present at the hearing.”
Neil Kitchens v. Kay Whisenhunt (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2דFurthermore, there is no error because the court held a hearing on the merits of the petition within thirty days from the date on which the petition was filed or at the next court date, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-204 (Supp. 2023). Kitchens next argues that the court…”
Golden Kinsey v. Anitra Ford, 2026 Ark. App. 173 (Ark. Ct. App. 2026). “§ 9-15-204 (Repl. 2020). “Domestic abuse” is defined as “physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-204(b)(1)(A): 2 cases
Jones v. Sanchez, 2017 Ark. App. 461 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “And § 9-15-204 provides no mechanism for setting aside intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays.”
Christopher Miller v. Keyunna Brown, 2025 Ark. App. 189 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). “In Duvall, we held that an order of 2 protection was void where the attempted service did not comply with section 9-15-204 and Duvall was not present at the hearing.”
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.