Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Arkansas Child Care Consultants, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Jackson v. Selig

    3:10-CV-00276-BRW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 13, 2013)

    Alexander v. Pathfinder, Inc., 91 F.3d 59, 62 (8th Cir. 1996). See Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., Div. of Children & Family Servs., Special Nutrition Program v. Arkansas Child Care Consultants, Inc., 318 Ark. 821, 824 (1994) (holding that agency's findings and factual determinations, for purposes of res judicata, become conclusive when no appeal is brought and the time for filing an appeal has run); Enviroclean, Inc. v. Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Comm'n, 314 Ark. 98, (1993) (holding that an administrative decision is invalid as arbitrary or capricious if it lacks a rational basis or relies on a finding of fact based on an erroneous view of the law); Hamilton v. Arkansas Pollution Control & Ecology Comm'n, 333 Ark. 370 (1998) (holding that issue preclusion does not apply with equal force to all administrative proceedings). Whether the ALJ's factual findings are preclusive in this action, however, is not a determination essential to deciding ADHS's Motion for Summary Judgment.

  2. Daley v. City of Little Rock

    892 S.W.2d 254 (Ark. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    The doctrine of res judicata prevents Daley from now claiming a right to benefits. See Ark. Dept. of Human Services v. Ark. Child Care Consultants, Inc., 318 Ark. 821, 889 S.W.2d 24 (1994). Of equal significance, the trial court held that the federal court determined in Daley, 885 F.2d 486, that Daley had been discharged for cause and our court of appeals has held that that federal decision is res judicata as to questions arising from the civil service commission's decisions in Daley's case. Daley, 36 Ark. App. 80, 84, 818 S.W.2d 259, 261.

  3. Black Bear Sols. v. State Dep't of Educ.

    330 So. 3d 840 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Conversely, Black Bear asserts on appeal that the Department's reliance on an unpublished decision from another jurisdiction is unavailing and cites a number of decisions from other jurisdictions that have considered appeals from administrative decisions under the CACFP. See, e.g., Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Arkansas Child Care Consultants, Inc., 318 Ark. 821, 889 S.W.2d 24 (1994) ; Four Oaks Family & Children's Servs. v. Iowa Dep't of Educ., 899 N.W.2d 739 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (table) (unpublished disposition); and Sparkman Learning Ctr. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 775 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2014). Our supreme court has stated that "[t]he opinions of our sister states are merely persuasive authority, and this Court is not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to follow such decisions."

  4. Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Siloam Springs Nursing & Rehabilitation

    214 S.W.3d 275 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005)

    We therefore reverse the circuit court order and remand with directions to reinstate the agency decision. See Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ark. Child Care Consultants, Inc., 318 Ark. 821, 889 S.W.2d 24 (1994). Circuit court reversed and remanded; agency decision rein-stated.

  5. Brandon v. Arkansas Western Gas Co.

    76 Ark. App. 201 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that, while the Commission is not bound by the Rules, and although it may look to the Rules for guidance, it is not required to do so

    See Ark. Code Ann. ยงยง 23-3-118 and 23-3-119 (1987). When an administrative board acts judicially or quasi-judicially, its decision may be res judicata in a second proceeding involving the same question. Hamilton v. Arkansas Pollution Control Ecology Comm'n, 333 Ark. 370, 969 S.W.2d 653 (1998); Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Arkansas Child Care Consultants, Inc., 318 Ark. 821, 889 S.W.2d 24 (1994); Bockman v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826 (1958); Perry v. Leisure Lodges, Inc., 19 Ark. App. 143, 718 S.W.2d 114 (1986); Rainbolt v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 204, 639 S.W.2d 532 (1982). Administrative res judicata is utilized to prevent collateral attacks on administrative agency decisions and to protect successful parties from duplicative proceedings.