Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

297 Ark. 25

Pike v. Rice

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 7, 1988

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1988-11-07

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1993

2 state decisions

Applies AR 26 § 26-74-309

Relies on Catlett v. Republican Party of Arkansas · Files v. Hill · Rich v. Walker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-11-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

¶1The appellants are the cities of Branch and Charleston and residents of the Charleston District of Franklin County. They filed suit in the Charleston District Chancery Court challenging an election held March 8, 1988, which approved a one cent county-wide sales tax.

¶2The appellees moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The trial judge said the action should have been filed in the Ozark District and dismissed the case. We find the action is an election contest and, therefore, the chancery court is without jurisdiction.

¶3We have settled the question of which court, circuit or chancery, has jurisdiction over election contests — it is circuit court.

¶4 In Rich v. Walker, 237 Ark. 586, 374 S.W.2d 476 (1964), and Catlett v. Republican Party of Arkansas, 242 Ark. 283, 413 S.W.2d 651 (1967), we held election contests must be filed in a law court. See also Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Munson, 287 Ark. 53, 696 S.W.2d 720 (1985); Files v. Hill, 268 Ark. 106, 594 S.W.2d 836 (1980). That part of Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-309(c) (1987), which attempts to grant chancery court jurisdiction of an election contest, is unconstitutional.

¶5The trial court reached the right result. So we affirm his decision, not reaching the question raised on appeal.

¶6Affirmed.

/297/ark/25 · .json · Public domain