Rettig v. Ballard, 2009 Ark. 629, 362 S.W.3d 260 (holding that a suit was commenced within the statute of limitations when the complaint was timely filed, although timely served summonses were defective; thus, savings statute applied to permit suit within one year of dismissal). They also discuss several other Arkansas Supreme Court cases: Jones v. Douglas, 2016 Ark. 166, 489 S.W.3d 648 (holding that a timely, completed attempt to serve appellees afforded appellants the benefit of the savings statute); Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Lyons, 315 Ark. 173, 866 S.W.2d 372 (1993) (holding that improper service within 120 days of filing of the first complaint was sufficient to invoke the saving statute and toll the statute of limitations); Cole v. First Nat'l Bank of Ft. Smith, 304 Ark. 26, 800 S.W.2d 412 (1990) (holding that even though service had not been perfected, the savings statute applied).
King had the right to rely on those extension orders, which, again, were in effect at the time service was obtained. See Cole v. First Nat'l Bank of Ft. Smith, 304 Ark. 26, 800 S.W.2d 412 (1990) (plaintiff had the right to rely on the trial court's default judgment, though erroneously entered, and the savings statute applied). The order of dismissal with prejudice is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.