Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Ford v. Keith

    338 Ark. 487 (Ark. 1999)   Cited 113 times
    In Ford, we noted that "merely because Act 117 of 1999 changes the language in the statute...does not necessarily mean that an error occurred in the drafting of the 1997 statute."

    However, as Keith notes in his brief, agency actions governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act are exempt from the Rules of Civil Procedure because the A.P.A. provides a different procedure for the parties to follow. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 81(a); See also Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984) and Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Board, 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992). [10] Under the A.P.A., Bancshares and Union Bank did not have to be listed as parties, they just had to be served with notice of the proceedings.

  2. Arkansas Department of Human Serv. v. Kistler

    320 Ark. 501 (Ark. 1995)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that it was unnecessary to address the circuit court's finding that agency failed to file entire administrative record within ninety days as required by section 25-15-212(d) because it had already held that agency's decision was arbitrary

    Section 25-15-212 establishes the rules and procedures applicable to the process. In Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984), this Court held the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to the judicial review procedure. In fact, we stated that when a party chooses to proceed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act he is bound by the procedures set out therein.

  3. Sosebee v. County Line School District

    320 Ark. 412 (Ark. 1995)   Cited 17 times
    In Sosebee, the appellant, a teacher, appealed a circuit court decision determining that her appeal under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act was a special proceeding and, thus, prevented her from refiling her appeal following her voluntary nonsuit of that appeal.

    This is analogous to applying the Rules of Civil Procedure to judicial review of administrative decisions which we have refrained from doing in the past. See Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Bd., 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992); Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984). That, however, is the next logical step under the rationale of today's opinion.

  4. American Ins. Co. v. Cazort

    316 Ark. 314 (Ark. 1994)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that an insurer-nonsignatory could compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between an insured-broker and one of the broker's clients, stating, "`In short, [plaintiff] cannot have it both ways. It cannot rely on the contract when it works to its advantage and ignore it when it works to its disadvantage.'" ( quoting Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966))

    When we promulgated Rule 2, we did not intend to alter the statutory rights of appeal that were then in existence. Sunbelt Courier v. McCartney, 303 Ark. 522, 798 S.W.2d 92 (1990), and Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984). The Uniform Arbitration Act and its section on appeals, 16-108-219, were enacted in 1969 and were in existence at the time we promulgated Rule 2.

  5. Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Bd.

    311 Ark. 125 (Ark. 1992)   Cited 56 times
    Declining to reach "several arguments" that were not raised before the Board

    A hearing was held on the motion but the court denied it and accepted an order drafted by the Plant Board pursuant to the court's directions. The Plant Board countered that under Ark. Code Ann. 25-15-212(h)(1)-(6)(1992) and Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984), the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to civil actions brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. We held in Whitlock that the Administrative Procedure Act is an exception to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure under Rule 81(a), and we have repeated this rule in more recent cases.

  6. Sunbelt Couriers v. McCartney

    303 Ark. 522 (Ark. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that where two statutes address the same subject, and one of them is more specific, the one that is more specific will govern

    Similarly, we have held that appeal provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, instead of the Rules of Civil Procedure, govern the review of an agency decision. Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984). Accordingly, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for a decision on the merits.

  7. Peco Foods, Inc. v. Johnson

    2023 Ark. App. 223 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Similarly, we have held that appeal provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, instead of the Rules of Civil Procedure, govern the review of an agency decision. Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984).

  8. Snyder v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

    2018 Ark. App. 473 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that appellant's argument for default judgment was incorrect because DHS had filed the record within the ninety-day limitation as provided in the statute

    She is incorrect. First, agency actions governed by the APA are exempt from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not apply to administrative proceedings. Ford v. Keith , 338 Ark. 487, 996 S.W.2d 20 (1999) ; Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Campbell , 87 Ark. App. 206, 189 S.W.3d 495 (2004) (citing Whitlock v. G.P.W. Nursing Home, Inc. , 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984) ). Therefore, default judgment is not an appropriate remedy for an appeal from an administrative proceeding.

  9. Sunbelt Couriers v. McCartney

    31 Ark. App. 8 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 27 times
    In Sunbelt, there was a conflict between section 11-9-711(b) and Rule 4(a)-the statute provided that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of receipt of the Commission's decision, and the rule provided that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of a judgment.

    In Ashcraft v. Quimby, 2 Ark. App. 174, 617 S.W.2d 390 (1981), we held, in effect, that the time for filing notice of appeal in a workers' compensation case was governed by Acts 252 and 253 of 1979 (predecessors of Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-711(b)) rather than Rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The problem is similar to that addressed by the supreme court in Whitlock v. G.P.W Nursing Home, Inc., 283 Ark. 158, 672 S.W.2d 48 (1984). In that case there was conflict between the Administrative Procedure Act and the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.