Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212

Section 25-15-212(e) does not require remand for transfer when the substantive issues have already been resolved.

Patterson v. Hillcrest Home · filed 1989-05-30(e)

The appellant also argues that the trial court should have transferred the case to Greene County, the site of the first judicial review of the DHS’s interpretation of these two acts. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(e) (1987). It would be a futile and senseless act to remand the case for transfer since the substantive issues in the case have been resolved by our recent decisions.

Section 25-15-212(g) permits a reviewing court to take testimony about procedural irregularities before an agency that do not appear in the agency record.

Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division v. Cox · filed 1991-06-17(g)

Section 25-15-212(g) not only provides that the court’s administrative review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and confined to the record before the agency, it also states that, in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown in the record, testimony may be taken before the court. In addition, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(d)(4) (1987) provides that a court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record. Here, the third-party contacts made to Board members Holiman and Walters violated § 25-15-209(a) and, as procedural irregularities, were properly allowed by the trial court as added testimony describing those contacts and communications.

Section 25-15-212(g) allows parties to develop a record in circuit court concerning alleged agency procedural irregularities that do not appear in the agency record.

City of Benton v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission · filed 2001-06-14(g)

“[I]n cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, testimony may be taken before the [circuit] court) The court shall, upon request, hear oral argument and receive written briefs.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(g) (Repl. 1999). Appellants had the opportunity before the circuit court to develop a record with evidence of the content of any alleged third-party communications received by Executive Director Young.

Section 25-15-212(g) permits testimony about agency procedural irregularities not shown in the record, but a court may deny depositions of board members when there is insufficient evidence of irregularities.

In re Gilmore v. Arkansas Board of Registration · filed 2011-02-23(g)

The Administrative Procedure Act provides that “[t]he review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record, testimony may be taken before the court.” Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(g). ... We hold that the circuit court did not err in denying Gilmore’s request to depose members of the Board. Gilmore’s argument offers no basis for such an assertion because there is insufficient evidence of procedural irregularities before us.

Section 25-15-212(g) permits a circuit court to take evidence about alleged procedural irregularities before an agency that are absent from the record; it does not permit the court to supply deficient agency findings and conclusions.

Arkansas State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers & Professional Surveyors v. Callicott · filed 2016-10-19(g)

We are aware that the circuit court is allowed to take new evidence and, presumably, to make findings thereon in the limited instance of “alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency not shown in the record.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(g). However, that is not what happened here; that statutory exception does not apply to the particular deficiencies in the Board’s findings and conclusions that are detailed in the following paragraph of our opinion and that form the basis for our decision in this case.

Section 25-15-212(h) does not require a reviewing court to apply all six grounds for review when the appellant gives no reason to apply the others.

Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Board · filed 1992-11-23(h)

The trial court’s order reflected that the trial court did take three of these factors into consideration: whether supported by substantial evidence (§ 25-15-212(h)(5)), whether made upon unlawful procedure (§ 25-15-212(h)(3)), and whether there existed arbitrary and capricious procedure (§ 25-15-212(h)(6)). This was more than sufficient to satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act.

Section 25-15-212(a) provides judicial review for adjudications, but an employee’s discharge is an administrative decision outside that review.

Viswanathan v. Mississippi County Community College Board of Trustees · filed 1994-12-05(a)

Mr. Viswanathan sought an extension in order to file a petition for judicial review pursuant to the judicial review provision (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212) of the Administrative Procedure Act. ... Thus, assuming that the Administrative Procedure Act even applies to a decision made by the Board of Trustees, the discharge of an employee is an administrative decision. ... Accordingly, we find the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirm the circuit court’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits review of agency decisions to substantial evidence and the other listed grounds; courts do not review the record de novo.

Arkansas State Police Commission v. Smith · filed 1999-07-08(h)

According to the Act, it is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, review is limited to ascertaining whether them is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of administrative decisions, which can make an administrative remedy inadequate when the agency has already taken a position on the dispute.

Arkansas State Medical Board v. Schoen · filed 1999-10-14(h)

But judicial review of an administrative appeal is limited. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 1996). We conclude that under these circumstances the administrative remedy is inadequate and chancery court should retain jurisdiction pursuant to its authority under § 17-95-402(b) and (c).

Section 25-15-212 limits judicial review of agency decisions; a court upholds a decision supported by substantial evidence that is not arbitrary or capricious.

Arkansas State Board of Architects v. Hawkins · filed 2000-03-08

Under the Administrative Procedure Act the review by the circuit court of an administrative agency decision is limited in scope. See generally Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Supp. 1999). ... Under this standard of review, we conclude that the decision of the Board was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious.

Subsection (h) limits the scope of circuit court review of agency decisions.

Culpepper v. Arkansas Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 2001-02-01(h)

The Arkansas A.P.A. allows this Court to review the decision of the administrative agency notwithstanding the decision rendered by the circuit court, whose review is limited in scope by Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Supp. 1999).

Section 25-15-212(a) requires a petitioner seeking judicial review of final agency action to plead how the action has injured or immediately threatens to injure the petitioner's person, business, or property.

Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Muncrief · filed 2001-06-13(a)

We are mindful of the fact that the Administrative Procedures Act confers standing to seek judicial review of a final agency action on “any person who considers himself injured in his person, business, or property.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Repl. 1996). However, to have standing, a petitioner must assert in her pleadings how she has “already sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining injury either in his ‘person, business or property’ as a consequence of the final action of [ABC] in issuing the new permit.” Estes v. Walters, supra.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to substantial evidence and the other listed grounds; courts do not review the record de novo.

Arkansas State Racing Commission v. Wayne Ward, Inc. · filed 2001-10-25(h)

According to the Act, it is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether substantial evidence supports it or another listed ground warrants relief; courts do not review the record de novo.

Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board v. Pegasus Renovation Co. · filed 2001-12-20(h)

According to the Act, it is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Muncrief · filed 1992-02-24(h)

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-21.2(h) (1987) provides that the trial court may reverse or modify the Board’s decision if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Our review is similarly limited and, on appeal, we review the entire record in making this determination.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review to the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s ruling.

Williams v. Arkansas State Board of Physical Therapy · filed 2003-06-26

Judicial review of a decision of the Arkansas Board of Physical Therapy is governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Supp. 1999). The appellate court’s review is directed not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review of an administrative decision toward the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s ruling.

Ford Motor Co. v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission · filed 2004-04-29

Before turning to the merits of Ford’s argument, we note that judicial review of a decision by the AMVC is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002). The appellate court’s review is directed, not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency, because administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review to the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s ruling.

Batiste v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2005-03-03

Before turning to the merits of Mrs. Batiste's arguments, we note that judicial review of a decision by DHS is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl.2002). The appellate court's review is directed, not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency, because administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization, insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their agencies.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review of an administrative decision toward the agency's decision rather than the circuit court's ruling.

Teston v. ARK. STATE BD. OF CHIROP. EXAM. · filed 2005-04-07

Judicial review of agency decisions is governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002). The appellate court's review is directed not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review toward the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s order.

Teston v. Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners · filed 2005-04-07

Judicial review of agency decisions is governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002). The appellate court’s review is directed not toward the circuit court, but toward the decision of the agency.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether substantial evidence supports it or another statutory ground for reversal applies.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Bixler · filed 2005-06-15(h)

We review the case only to ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's decision or whether the decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (2002). Judicial review is limited in scope; the administrative agency decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and if it is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, reviewing the entire record to make that determination.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review to the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s ruling.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Holman · filed 2006-10-04

A decision by the Department of Human Services is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Supp. 2005). The appellate court’s review is directed not toward the circuit court, but instead toward the decision of the agency.

Section 25-15-212(a) allows judicial review when a person alleges a concrete, specific, real, and immediate injury from final agency action; financial injury can support standing.

ARKANSAS BEVERAGE RETAILERS ASS'N v. Moore · filed 2007-05-03(a)

For all of the foregoing reasons, we hold that ABRA has demonstrated a sufficient consideration of injury under section 25-15-212(a) by which to confer standing on it to challenge the ABC Board's decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to whether substantial evidence supports it or another listed ground for reversal applies.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. A.B. · filed 2008-09-11(h)

Thus, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(a) permits judicial review of the State Board of Education’s decision on a petition to close an isolated school because that decision is a final agency adjudication.

Walker v. Arkansas State Board of Education · filed 2010-06-03(a)

Accordingly, we hold that the Board’s determination on the petition was a final disposition and constituted an adjudication for purposes of the APA, rendering the APA applicable.

Section 25-15-212(a) limits judicial review to the agency’s final action.

Reed v. Arvis Harper Bail Bonds, Inc. · filed 2010-09-23(a)

Under the APA, Arvis Harper’s challenge is limited strictly to. the final action of the agency. See Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a).

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) and (6) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when a petitioner’s substantial rights are prejudiced by findings unsupported by substantial evidence or by arbitrary, capricious, or abusive action.

Olsten Health Services, Inc. v. Arkansas Health Services Commission · filed 2000-03-15(h)(5) and (6)

Under the Act, we may reverse or modify an agency decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are, inter alia, not supported by substantial evidence of record or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Jackson v. Arkansas Racing Commission · filed 2001-01-11(h)

Here, we cannot say that the commission’s decision was unsupported by the evidence or arbitrary and capricious.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights and lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board v. Oudin · filed 2002-03-21(h)

Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-212(h) provides that this court may reverse or modify the Board’s decision ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or ... (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when the appellant’s substantial rights are prejudiced by findings unsupported by substantial evidence or by arbitrary or capricious action.

H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis · filed 2003-06-26(h)

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2002), provides that this court may reverse or modify an administrative agency’s decision if the substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... A review of the record in the instant case reveals that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding of a violation and the sanctions it imposed on Hackney.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when the petitioner’s substantial rights are prejudiced by findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Parker · filed 2004-11-03(h)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the circuit court or appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes: ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or ... Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 1996). ... For the reasons stated above, we hold that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, affirm the circuit court’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when the petitioner’s substantial rights were prejudiced on one of the listed grounds.

Department of Health & Hum. Servs. v. Rc · filed 2007-02-08(h)

The APA only permits this court to reverse the ALJ’s decision if we conclude that the decision violates one of the bases set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h), that is, if R.C.’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because that decision was violative of constitutional or statutory provisions; was in excess of DHHS’s statutory authority; was made upon unlawful procedure; was affected by other error or law; was not supported by substantial evidence of record; or was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. ... We cannot say that any of the bases under section 25-15-212(h) exist so as to permit reversal of the ALJ’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a circuit court to modify an agency’s penalty, including reducing a license revocation to a suspension.

Mann v. Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board · filed 2004-12-01(h)

With regard to the Board’s decision to revoke Mann’s license, we note that the Board has not appealed from the circuit court’s modification of the revocation to a one-year suspension, which was within the circuit court’s powers set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to modify an agency penalty that is arbitrary and capricious, even when substantial evidence supports the underlying violation.

Collie v. Arkansas State Medical Board · filed 2007-06-07(h)

Pursuant to section 25-15-212(h), this court may reverse or modify the Board’s decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... When we take into consideration the fact that Dr. Collie has been practicing medicine for thirty-four years without a prior blemish on his professional record, we agree with his assertion that the severity of the Board’s decision to revoke his license renders it arbitrary and capricious. ... Accordingly, we modify the Board’s decision to revoke Dr. Collie’s medical license to a suspension of that license for a period of one year.

Section 25-15-212(h) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Walls v. Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission · filed 2012-02-01(h)

The Administrative Procedure Act provides that a court may reverse or modify an agency’s order when the agency’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: 1) in violation of constitutional or statutory pro-visions; 2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; 3) made upon unlawful procedure; 4) affected by other error or law; 5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or 6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15~ffl2(h)6 (Repl.2002). We adhere to these standards of review in analyzing the following arguments.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of agency decisions to substantial evidence and the other specified grounds, rather than de novo review.

Beavers v. Arkansas Board of Examiners in Counseling · filed 2013-04-10(h)

Under the APA, it is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212 permits judicial review of an agency decision only when the agency has made an adjudication.

Sears v. Zumwalt · filed 2013-12-11(a)

Without an administrative adjudication, the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Sears under the jurisdictional statute Zumwalt pleaded—Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212.

Section 25-15-212(a) requires a petitioner seeking judicial review of agency action to demonstrate a specific, concrete, real, and immediate injury from that action.

Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2016-03-09(a)

If a petitioner does not demonstrate specific, concrete, real, and immediate injury from the agency’s action, then he or she is not entitled to judicial review of agency action. We find no error with the trial court’s determination that Gildehaus’s assertions of injury are not sufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction to review the agency decision pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-15-212(a).

Section 25-15-212(a) generally excludes inmates from judicial review under the APA, but allows review when an inmate raises a constitutional question supported by a sufficient liberty interest.

Whiteside v. Arkansas Parole Board · filed 2016-05-19(a)

Under the APA, judicial review is therefore generally not available to an inmate, but, in Clinton v. Bonds, 306 Ark. 554, 816 S.W.2d 169 (1991), this court held that the APA was unconstitutional to the extent that it deprived inmates of review of a constitutional question, and we recognized an exception to the general rule where the petitioner brings a challenge that is sufficient to raise a liberty interest.

Section 25-15-212(a) allows a person injured by final agency action to seek judicial review; a nearby competing permit holder has standing to challenge a permit decision.

Moore v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2016-12-01(a)

In cases of adjudication, any person, except an inmate under sentence to the custody of the Department of Correction who considers himself or herself injured in his or her person, business, or property by a final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review of the action. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Repl. 2014). ... Because appellant holds a permit for a nearby location that would be in direct competition with Mrs. Gildehaus’s store, we hold that he has demonstrated standing to seek review of the Board’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(a) allows a person who alleges injury from final agency action to seek judicial review.

Gildehaus v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2016-12-01(a)

Gildehaus’s petition was sufficient to allege standing pursuant to section 25-15-212(a), and this allegation was not challenged by Moore or by the Board.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse or modify an agency decision when a listed defect, including lack of substantial evidence, prejudices the petitioner's substantial rights.

Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2018-09-26(h)

The Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency's decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced ... because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are ... (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record, or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Supp. 2017). ... Because this court gives the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the administrative agency's decision, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of agency decisions to specified legal and procedural errors, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Harrison v. Ark. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. · filed 2019-03-27(h)

Judicial review of administrative agency decisions is governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, which limits our inquiry to the question of whether the administrative agency's decisions violate constitutional or statutory provisions; exceed the agency's statutory authority; involve an unlawful procedure; are the result of an error of law; are not supported by substantial evidence; or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2014).

Section 25-15-212(a) generally bars ADC inmates from judicial review of administrative complaints but allows review of adequately asserted constitutional violations.

MUNTAQIM v. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; JADA LAWRENCE, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE D · filed 2019-09-12(a)

Judicial review of administrative complaints is generally unavailable to ADC inmates. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Repl. 2014). But this rule does not preclude review of an asserted constitutional violation.

Section 25-15-212(a) generally makes judicial review unavailable to ADC inmates, with an exception for asserted constitutional violations.

Joe Perry, Jr. v. State of Arkansas · filed 2020-01-23(a)

Judicial review of administrative complaints is generally unavailable to petitioners incarcerated at ADC. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Repl. 2014). An exception exists for review of an asserted constitutional violation.

Section 25-15-212(a) allows judicial review of sex-offender reassessments because the process is an adjudication, even without a hearing.

Mitchell v. Sex Offender Assessment Committee, State of Arkansas · filed 2020-04-22(a)

We hold that the sex-offender-reassessment process at issue in this appeal is an adjudication pursuant to the APA notwithstanding the lack of a hearing.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to substantial evidence and the other listed grounds for reversal.

Kosmic Kidz Outreach, Inc., and Fredrick Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Cindy Gillespie · filed 2020-12-09(h)

Thus, review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212(h); Oudin, supra.

Section 25-15-212 permits a court to reverse an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Capitol Zoning District Commission v. Cowan · filed 2012-10-31(h)(5), (6)

As with all appeals from administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act, the appellate court may reverse the Commission’s decision if it concludes that it is not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h)(1) and (3) permits reversal of an agency decision that violates statutory provisions or was made upon unlawful procedure.

Williform v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2018-05-16(h)(1), (h)(3)

Accordingly, the agency's decision was in violation of statutory provisions and was made upon unlawful procedure, and it must be reversed. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(1) & (3).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when substantial rights are prejudiced because the decision lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Shaw v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2018-05-23(h)

We hold that substantial evidence supports the agency's decision and that the decision is not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices a petitioner's substantial rights when the decision lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

J.C. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2019-02-27(h)(5)-(6)

Either the circuit court or the appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... We hold that because the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the decision cannot be classified as arbitrary or capricious.

A reviewing court may reverse an agency decision when a listed defect in that decision prejudices the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Ozark Mountain Reg'l Pub. Water Auth. v. Arkansas Attorney General · filed 2020-03-18(h)

As with all appeals from administrative decisions under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (AAPA), the appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes: [T]he substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error or law; (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision when specified errors prejudice the petitioner's substantial rights, including when substantial evidence does not support the decision.

Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2021-04-14(h)

The Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency’s decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error or law, (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record, or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Supp. 2019).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Pope · filed 2013-06-26(h)

We may reverse or modify an agency decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are, inter alia, not supported by substantial evidence of record or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Olsten, supra; Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h). ... We hold that there was not substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision that Brenda negligently supervised RM, especially where it was a third party, and not RM, who was actually harmed.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal for an error of law when the error prejudices the petitioner's substantial rights.

W.N. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. · filed 2018-06-06(h)

The appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes that the ALJ's decision was affected by error of law and the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced. ... We hold that WN has failed to demonstrate how his substantial rights were prejudiced by the ALJ's erroneous reference to the criminal-negligence standard.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision when an enumerated defect prejudices the petitioner's substantial rights.

Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Salcido · filed 2018-11-28(h)

The Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency's decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error or law, (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record, or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... Salcido was provided the opportunity to be heard, and his substantial rights have not been prejudiced.

Section 25-15-212(a) generally bars inmates from seeking judicial review of administrative decisions, but permits review of a sufficiently alleged constitutional violation.

Wood v. Arkansas Parole Board, John Felts, and Andy Shock · filed 2022-02-17(a)

Judicial review of administrative complaints is generally unavailable to petitioners incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (stating in pertinent part that in cases of adjudication, any person may seek judicial review of an administrative action except an inmate under sentence to the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction); see also Perry v. State, 2020 Ark. 32, at 2. An exception exists for review of an asserted constitutional violation.

Section 25-15-212(a) generally bars inmates from seeking judicial review of administrative complaints, but permits review of a constitutional claim sufficient to raise a liberty interest.

Kennedy v. Arkansas Parole Board · filed 2024-09-26(a)

Judicial review of administrative complaints is generally unavailable to inmates. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Repl. 2014). But this rule does not preclude review of an asserted constitutional violation. ... Here, notwithstanding the circuit court’s lack of factual findings on Kennedy’s indigency, he fails to allege a constitutional question sufficient to raise a liberty interest.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision when the petitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced.

Arkansas Department of Human Services Crimes Against Children Division v. Mitchell · filed 2021-10-21(h)

Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-15-212(h) provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency decision if the “substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced[.]” Here, Mitchell suffered no prejudice.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to reverse or modify an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

BOLDING v. ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM BOARD CANDACE F · filed 2022-06-01(h)

The Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a reviewing court may reverse or modify the agency’s decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error or law, (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record, or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency’s decision, we hold that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision and, as such, it follows that the decision cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when prejudiced substantial rights result from findings unsupported by substantial evidence or from arbitrary, capricious, or abusive action.

Gregory Mills v. Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System · filed 2024-04-24(h)

For purposes of our review of this case, the APA provides that the agency decision may be reversed or modified if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are not supported by substantial evidence or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2014).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when a specified defect prejudices the substantial rights of a party against whom the agency ruled.

Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Freeway Surgery Center · filed 2024-11-06(h)

We may reverse the agency decision if the substantial rights of the parties against whom the agency ruled have been prejudiced because the ruling is (1) in violation of the constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful authority; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2024); see Crain Fam. Holdings, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 2021 Ark. App. 361, at 3–4, 635 S.W.3d 346, 348.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices substantial rights on listed grounds, including abuse of discretion.

Best v. Arkansas State Board of Nursing · filed 2026-01-14(h)

An agency decision may be reversed if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision when specified errors prejudice a petitioner’s substantial rights, including a lack of substantial evidence or arbitrary or capricious action.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. McWilliams · filed 2026-04-01(h)

The appellate court may reverse or modify an agency’s decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h). ... Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not run afoul of any of the criteria in the APA.

Section 25-15-212 governs judicial review of agency adjudications and does not bar intervention in a declaratory judgment action challenging an agency rule.

Bayercropsciences Lp v. Glen Hooks Michael Dougan Pratt Remmell Reed Storey Tim Fisher Victor Gray Bland Currie Gladys W · filed 2022-02-10(g)

While both judicial review of adjudications and declaratory judgments are provided for under the APA, the scope and relevant procedures are not interchangeable. ... Because the APA provides no standard for intervention, Rule 24 applies.

Section 25-15-212(h) allows a court to reverse or modify an agency decision that violates constitutional or statutory provisions.

Tanner v. Ziegenhorn · filed 2023-01-20(h)

Under Arkansas’s Administrative Procedure Act, a court “may reverse or modify the [agency’s] decision” if it was “in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h). It decided not to do so, which made rejecting the Fourth Amendment argument essential to its judgment upholding the permit revocation.

Section 25-15-212 requires the reviewing court to consider the entire agency record when assessing an administrative decision.

In re Brandenburg · filed 2003-10-29

This court reviews the entire record in making this determination. Id.; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002).

Section 25-15-212(a) excludes inmates sentenced to the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction from its judicial review procedure.

Freeman v. A. L. Lockhart, Director of Arkansas Department of Correction · filed 1993-04-29(a)

We note that Freeman improperly attempted to proceed under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(a) (Michie 1987), which provides for judicial review of administrative actions but specifically excludes "an inmate under sentence to the custody of the [ADC]."

An inmate seeking judicial review of a prison disciplinary decision under § 25-15-212 must raise a constitutional question sufficient to implicate a liberty interest.

Smith v. Hobbs · filed 2014-06-05(a)

Accordingly, in cases like the one here, where an inmate challenges a disciplinary proceeding and ADC officials’ implementation of ADC rules, the petitioner must raise a constitutional question sufficient to raise a liberty interest merely to fall within the classification of claims subject to judicial review.

Section 25-15-212(c) provides for a hearing to stay enforcement of an agency order pending appeal; without a stay, an expired disciplinary order may leave no matter to remand.

Hollabaugh v. Arkansas State Medical Board · filed 1993-09-08(c)

The record does not show that the board conducted any hearing pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(c) (Repl. 1992) to stay, pending appeal, enforcement of its disciplinary order of March 12, 1992, which placed Dr. Hollabaugh on probation for one year. Consequently, the matter should now be moot and we will not remand the proceeding through the circuit court back to the board for further proceedings.

Section 25-15-212(b)(1) requires a petition for judicial review within thirty days after service of the agency’s final decision; when the last day falls on a weekend, filing on the next business day is timely.

McCarty v. Board of Trustees · filed 1994-03-16(b)(1)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, which both parties agree is applicable, proceedings for review of the Board’s decision “shall be instituted by filing a petition, within thirty (30) days after service upon petitioner of the agency’s final decision.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(b)(l) (Repl. 1992). ... However, there is no provision in the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Administrative Procedure Act that conflicts with the provision in Rule 9 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure that extends the time for filing the notice of appeal to the next business day when the last day for filing falls on a Saturday or Sunday. We think that provision should be followed here. Therefore, even if the Board’s decision was served on appellant the day her claim was denied, the petition and notice of appeal filed on Monday — May 14 — would be timely.

Section 25-15-212(b)(1) requires a petition for judicial review within thirty days after service of the agency’s final decision.

Linell v. Norris · filed 2009-05-21(b)(1)

Moreover, section 25-15-212(b)(l) of the APA requires that petitions for judicial review be initiated “within thirty (30) days after service upon petitioner of the agency’s final decision.”

Section 25-15-212(b) requires a petition for judicial review to be filed within thirty days after the petitioner is served with the agency’s final decision.

Koontz v. Hobbs · filed 2014-05-15(b)

Under the APA, a petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after service of the agency’s final decision upon the petitioner.

Section 25-15-212(b)(1) requires a petition for judicial review of a Parole Board decision to be filed in an appropriate Arkansas circuit court within thirty days of the decision.

Anderson v. Payne · filed 2020-03-17(b)(1)

Petitioner was required to appeal the Arkansas Parole Board’s decision within thirty days of the decision by filing a petition with an appropriate Arkansas state circuit court. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(b)(1).

A petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after the petitioner is served with the agency’s final decision; a late petition cannot obtain relief under the APA.

Crossno v. Felts · filed 2014-05-29(b)

First, under the APA, a petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after ... service of the agency’s final decision on the petitioner. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(b). This thirty-day period begins to run when the petitioner is served with a copy of the decision being challenged. Lee, 2012 Ark. 342. When a petition is filed outside the thirty-day window, it is untimely, and a petitioner is precluded from seeking relief under the APA.

Section 25-15-212(b) requires a petition for judicial review to be filed within thirty days after the petitioner is served with the agency’s final decision.

Day v. Minor · filed 2015-06-04(b)

Under the APA, a petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after service of the agency’s final decision upon the petitioner. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(b). This thirty-day period begins to run when an inmate is served with a copy of the ADC’s decision.

A petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days of the agency’s final decision.

Roberts v. Payne · filed 2024-12-04(b)(1)(B)

The prisoner must file a petition seeking judicial review within thirty days of the agency’s final decision.

Section 25-15-212 requires a petition for judicial review to be filed within thirty days after service of the agency’s final decision; a late petition cannot obtain APA relief.

Koontz v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction; And William Straughn, Deputy Director, Arkansa · filed 2025-04-09(b)(1)(B)

When a petition is filed outside the thirty-day window, it is untimely, and the petitioner is precluded from seeking relief under the APA.

The thirty-day period to petition for judicial review begins when a party receives actual notice of the agency’s final order through counsel.

Danny Caldwell and Federico Villafranco v. Arkansas Racing Commission · filed 2026-01-28(b)(1)

We hold that Caldwell received actual notice of the Commission’s final order on May 20 through counsel. ... We also hold that the Commission’s May 20 order was final for the purpose of starting the appeal deadline in circuit court.

Section 25-15-212(f) provides a way to seek leave from the circuit court to present additional evidence, with a showing that the evidence is material.

City of Hector v. Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission · filed 1994-11-30(f)

Nor is there any indication that the appellant made application to the circuit court for leave to present additional evidence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(f) (Repl. 1992). In the absence of any proffer or statutory showing that the additional evidence the appellant desired would have been material, we find no error on this point.

Section 25-15-212(f) permits a reviewing court to order an agency to take additional evidence when the evidence is material and there were good reasons it was not presented earlier.

Brown v. Arkansas State Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (HVACR) Licensing Board · filed 1999-01-07(f)

Having made no objection to the Board, a statutory procedure remained available to appellant to seek to reopen the hearing for presentation of additional evidence, but no effort was made to pursue this procedure.

Section 25-15-212(g) generally confines judicial review to the agency record; when read with the Brine Production Act, it permits limited additional evidence.

Great Lakes Chemical Corp. v. Bruner · filed 2006-11-16(g)

Reading the Brine Production Act harmoniously with the APA, it appears the correct procedure for the circuit court to follow is to limit its review to the record and allow the parties to introduce evidence only for the purpose of showing the Commission’s order was invalid or unreasonable, which we interpret to mean either procedural irregularities that occurred before the Commission or situations where there was good reason for not presenting the evidence to the Commission.

Section 25-15-212 gives the circuit court discretion to allow additional evidence when the conditions in subsections (f) or (g) are met.

Steve A. Baldwin, as Representative of the Joan A. Baldwin Family Trust, Agreement; The Steve A. Baldwin Family Trust; T · filed 2025-02-26(f), (g)

Both subsections leave the circuit court with discretion to allow the taking of additional evidence in certain circumstances.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision that is not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Franklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 1995-02-13(h)(5)

In sum, we find the denial decision was not supported by substantial evidence of record. In light of our holding that appellee's decision was not supported by substantial evidence of record, we need not address appellant's final argument that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(5) (Repl.1992). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the circuit court and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

Section 25-15-212 requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision when substantial evidence supports it.

Bohannon v. Arkansas State Board of Nursing · filed 1995-04-03(h)(5)

Judicial review of decisions of the Arkansas State Board of Nursing is governed by the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 1992). If there is any substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision, the reviewing court will not reverse. ... In summary, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that appellant diverted drugs from her employers at Bates Memorial Hospital and at Eureka Springs Memorial Hospital and made false documentation about those drugs at both facilities.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights because it lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious.

Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission v. City of Bentonville · filed 2002-12-12(h)

Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-212(h) provides that this court may reverse or modify the Board’s decision ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. ... Based on our review of the record in this matter, we conclude that ASWCC’s order approving Centerton’s water project is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision when findings unsupported by substantial evidence prejudice the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Haen · filed 2003-03-12(h)(5)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the circuit court or appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes: ... (h) [T]he substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or ... Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the agency decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) requires the reviewing court to examine the entire record for substantial evidence supporting the agency’s decision.

Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment v. Claybaugh · filed 2005-10-26(h)

When reviewing administrative decisions, the court reviews the entire record to determine whether any substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when findings unsupported by substantial evidence prejudice the petitioner's substantial rights.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Bixler · filed 2005-12-01(h)

The circuit court or appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes: (h) [T]he substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when findings unsupported by substantial evidence prejudice the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Arkansas Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors v. Reddick · filed 2006-04-13(h)

The circuit court or appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes that: ... (h) [T]he substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Nash v. Arkansas Elevator Safety Board · filed 2007-06-21(h)(5)

The standard of review to be used by both the circuit court and the appellate court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence, including a decision contrary to the clear terms of a surety bond.

Arkansas Board of Collection Agencies v. McGhee · filed 2008-01-17(h)(5)

We conclude that the Board’s decision is at odds with the clear language of the Old Republic bond because this state’s anti-usury policy as expressed by Article 19, § 13 of the Arkansas Constitution has been violated. Hence, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s decision.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights when the decision lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Halstead v. Sex Offender Assessment Comm. · filed 2013-08-28(h)(5)

When reviewing administrative decisions, we review the entire record to determine whether any substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision. ... Giving the evidence its strongest probative force in favor of the Committee, we hold that it supports the level 3 assessment.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when findings unsupported by substantial evidence prejudice the petitioner's substantial rights.

State of Ark. Sex Offender Risk Assessment Comm. v. Wallace · filed 2013-11-06(h)

The APA provides that an agency decision may be reversed if the substantial rights of the petitioner have ... been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: ... not supported by substantial evidence of record; or arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl. 2002). ... We hold that the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 25-15-212(h)(5) permits reversal of an agency decision when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Dyer v. Arkansas Insurance Department · filed 2015-09-02(h)(5)

The APA provides that an agency decision may be reversed if, among other reasons, it is not supported by substantial evidence of record.

Section 25-15-212(h) requires an appellate court to affirm an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

Burton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2015-12-09(h)

An appellate court sitting in review of a finding of an administrative agency must affirm the agency’s finding if the finding is supported by any substantial evidence.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence and prejudice the petitioner's substantial rights.

Jones v. Ark. Local Police & Fire Ret. Sys. · filed 2018-05-02(h)

For purposes of our review of this case, the APA provides that the agency decision may be reversed or modified if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are not supported by substantial evidence or are arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion. ... On the record before this court, we conclude that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ms. Jones's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her actual performance of duty as an employee of the Department.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence; the reviewing court asks whether the record supports the agency’s findings.

Bd. of Trs. of the Ark. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Garrison · filed 2019-05-01(h)

The standard of review is "whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency's findings." ... Finally, we find that the administrative record supports the Board of Trustees' finding that the appellees were not compensated in that manner.

Section 25-15-212(h) requires a reviewing court to affirm an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

Kosmic Kidz Outreach, Inc., and Fredrick Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services · filed 2020-12-09(h)

An appellate court sitting in review of a finding of an administrative agency must affirm the agency’s finding if the finding is supported by any substantial evidence. ... Substantial evidence supports DHS’s decision, and we affirm.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision that prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights when the decision lacks substantial evidence.

Arkansas Ethics Commission v. Weaver · filed 2021-03-04(h)

As with all appeals from administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act, either the circuit court or the appellate court may reverse the agency decision if it concludes that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error or law; (5) not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h) requires an appellate court to affirm an administrative agency’s finding if any substantial evidence supports it.

Patterson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services Office of Appeals and Hearings, Kristin Putnam, Secretary · filed 2026-02-25(h)

An appellate court sitting in review of an administrative agency’s finding must affirm the agency’s finding if it is supported by any substantial evidence.

Section 25-15-212 makes the agency bear the cost of preparing the administrative record but does not authorize an award of attorney’s fees.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Kistler · filed 1995-05-15

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 1992) provides the cost of the preparation of the record shall be borne by the agency, and the agency may only recover the cost of the record from the appealing party if the agency is the prevailing party. Thus, the statute provides only that the cost of the record shall be borne by the agency. The terms “costs” or “expenses” when used in a statute do not ordinarily include attorney’s fees. State v. McLeod, supra. Consequently, an award of attorney’s fees is not expressly provided for by § 25-15-212.

Section 25-15-212 preserves other means of review provided by law, including an original court action after an agency wage decision.

U.S. Rooter All Type Plumbing Co. v. Holliman · filed 1995-06-28(a)

Clearly, either party had the right to institute an original action in a court of law, and the trial court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Section 25-15-212(f) requires findings of diligence and good reasons for the earlier omission before a court may remand for additional evidence before an agency.

Department of Finance & Administration v. Samuhel · filed 1995-11-22(f)

However, the trial court in the case at bar failed to make the requisite findings of diligence and good reasons in its order, but instead remanded to the Board for additional evidence to be taken concerning issues which had not been raised in the initial administrative hearing. In the absence of any finding that the statutory requisites had been satisfied, the trial court erred in remanding to the Board for additional evidence to be taken.

Section 25-15-212(h)(3) permits reversal when an agency’s unlawful procedure prejudices an applicant’s substantial rights, including when the agency fails to follow its own notice rules.

Regional Care Facilities, Inc. v. Rose Care, Inc. · filed 1995-12-18(h)(3)

The decision of an administrative agency may be reversed “if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings ... are ... made upon unlawful procedure ...” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(3) (Repl. 1992). ... The procedure was “unlawful” because the Agency failed to follow that which it had prescribed. The applicants were prejudiced because they were unprepared to address their prospects for supplying the need for 140 nursing home beds in Benton County as opposed to the 70 stated in the original notice. We agree with the Trial Court’s decision to reverse the Commission and to remand the case so that the process may begin with the issuance of a proper notice.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision based on unlawful procedure when it prejudices the petitioner’s substantial rights.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Campbell · filed 2004-06-30(h)

We review the case only to ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (2002). ... Thus, the decision of an administrative agency may be reversed if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings from which appeal is taken were made upon unlawful procedure. ... Thus, the decision of the agency is reversed.

Section 25-15-212(h)(3) treats a challenge to the legality and propriety of an agency’s practical examination as a claim of unlawful procedures.

Hanks v. Sneed · filed 2006-05-18(h)(3)

Hanks does raise the issue of the legality and propriety of the practical examination which he was required to take. We consider this point to be a contest of “unlawful procedures” by the Board as provided under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (h)(3) (Repl. 2002).

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency order issued through unlawful procedure, including when the agency fails to follow its own rules.

Capstone Oilfield Disposal of Arkansas, Inc. v. Pope County · filed 2012-04-04(h)

The AOGC is bound by its own rules, and an order entered in contravention of those rules was issued by unlawful procedure.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal or modification of an agency decision for unlawful procedure only when it prejudices the petitioner's substantial rights.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Steven Mitchell-63 · filed 2021-02-03(h)

Courts may reverse or modify the decision of an agency only if the substantial rights of the petitioner are prejudiced by a decision made upon on unlawful procedure, ... and for the reasons discussed above, Mitchell has not made that showing here.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal for unlawful agency procedure only when it prejudices the petitioner's substantial rights.

Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Steven Mitchell-62 · filed 2021-02-03(h)

Courts may reverse or modify the decision of an agency only if the substantial rights of the petitioner are prejudiced by a decision made upon on unlawful procedure, see Ark. Code Ann. § 12-15-212(h), and for the reasons discussed above, Mitchell has not made that showing here.

Section 25-15-212(h) allows a court to reverse an agency decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary, and the same review standard applies in circuit and appellate courts.

Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department v. Kidder · filed 1996-11-18(h)

The rules governing judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies by both the circuit and appellate courts are the same.

Section 25-15-212(h) directs courts to review agency decisions under its six criteria, including whether substantial evidence supports the decision, rather than decide the facts anew.

ARK. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ST FRANCIS DCFS v. Thompson · filed 1998-01-22(h)

The Administrative Procedure Act makes it perfectly clear that the circuit courts and appellate courts review state agency decisions to determine whether they pass muster under the six criteria set out in § 25-15-212(h). Thus, under the APA it is not the role of the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record to determine whether some credible evidence of child maltreatment exists. Rather, we review the case to ascertain whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency decision or whether the agency decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in § 25-15-212(h).

Section 25-15-212 governs judicial review of agency decisions; a decision supported by substantial evidence is not arbitrary and capricious.

Otte v. Arkansas State Board of Acupuncture · filed 2005-03-31(h)

Where the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it is not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or its action is arbitrary or capricious and the petitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced.

Collins v. Arkansas Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors · filed 2009-06-24(h)

The standard of review to be used by both the circuit court and the appellate court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings. ... Given the number and frequency of contacts that she received from the Division, we think that the Board could reasonably infer that appellant’s failure to provide the demanded information was intentional.

Section 25-15-212 directs appellate review of an administrative decision to the agency’s decision rather than the circuit court’s decision.

Landmark Novelties, Inc. v. Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy · filed 2010-01-28

In an appeal of a decision of an administrative agency under the AAPA, specifically section 25-15-212, this court reviews the decision of the agency rather than the decision of the circuit court.

Section 25-15-212(h) calls for different standards of judicial review depending on the issue; when the facts are undisputed, whether an agency decision violates a statute is a question of law.

Griffin v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2009-03-11(h)(1)

The Administrative Procedure Act establishes different standards of judicial review depending on the kind of issue presented. Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl.2002). Here, the material facts are undisputed matters of the calendar. The question, then, is one of law: did the Department’s decision barring Griffin’s appeal as untimely violate the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act? Ark.Code Ann. § 25 — 15—212(h)(1).

An agency decision supported by substantial evidence cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary under section 25-15-212(h).

Palestine-Wheatley School District v. Hopkins · filed 2016-02-24(h)

Nonetheless, we have held that if or when an agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it automatically follows that it cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary. See Odyssey Healthcare, supra. Accordingly, we must determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision as established by our standard of review.

Section 25-15-212(h) provides for review of agency decisions for substantial evidence, arbitrariness, caprice, and abuse of discretion.

McCormick v. Ark. State Med. Bd. · filed 2017-12-13(h)

When reviewing such decisions, we uphold them pursuant to the APA if they are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of an agency decision to substantial evidence and the statute’s other grounds for reversal; courts do not review the record de novo.

Arkansas Sex Offender Assessment Committee v. Sera · filed 2023-04-26(h)

Under the APA, it is not the role of either the circuit courts or the appellate courts to conduct a de novo review of the record; rather, the review is limited to ascertaining whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision or whether the agency’s decision runs afoul of one of the other criteria set out in section 25-15-212. ... Having reviewed this appeal under the proper standards, we hold that substantial evidence supports SOAC’s assessment, so it automatically follows that its assessment cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary.

Section 25-15-212(h) limits judicial review of agency findings to whether substantial evidence supports them.

Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Services, Office of Long Term Care · filed 2021-09-01(h)

The standard of review to be used by both the circuit court and ... the appellate court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s findings.

Section 25-15-212 directs a reviewing court to consider the entire record when deciding whether substantial evidence supports an agency’s decision.

Van Curen v. Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board · filed 2002-09-04

This court reviews the entire record in making this determination. Id.; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (Repl. 2002).

Section 25-15-212(h)(3) permits reversal when an agency’s failure to follow its own rules prejudices substantial rights.

Stueart v. Arkansas State Police Commission · filed 1997-06-09(h)(3)

We hold that because the Commission ignored its own rules in affirming Stueart’s termination, its decision was based upon unlawful procedure. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(3) (Repl. 1996). ... We hold that the Commission’s failure to follow its own rules prejudiced the same substantial rights that the rules were promulgated to protect, and that this failure requires that we reverse the decision of the Commission to terminate Stueart.

Section 25-15-212(d)(2) allows an agency that prevails on appeal to recover the cost of preparing the record from the appealing party when the agency paid for the transcript.

Hankins v. Department of Finance & Administration · filed 1997-11-06(d)(2)

Because DF&A paid for a transcript and was the prevailing party, the circuit court did not err in ordering Hankins to reimburse the agency.

Section 25-15-212(d) permits recovery from the appealing party only for the cost of the record filed on appeal, excluding copies of materials omitted by agreement.

Kale v. Arkansas State Medical Board · filed 2006-06-29(d)

Section 25-15-212(d) specifically states that only the cost of the record shall be recovered from the appealing party. There is no indication that the medical records were ever included in the actual record filed on appeal.

Section 25-15-212(h)(6) provides for review of an agency decision for arbitrariness, capriciousness, or abuse of discretion when the issue is the agency’s application of law.

Social Work Licensing Board v. Moncebaiz · filed 1998-02-26(h)(6)

We do not review this case under the substantial-evidence standard because the issue is not whether the evidence supports the Board’s finding. Rather, the issue is whether the Board erred in applying the provisions of our Licensing Act, and we review the Board’s decision to ascertain whether it was “arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(6).

Section 25-15-212(h)(6) allows an agency decision to be set aside as arbitrary and capricious when it was made without consideration and in disregard of the facts.

Ccb v. Dhhs · filed 2007-01-25(h)(6)

In order to set an agency decision aside as arbitrary and capricious, an appellant must demonstrate that the decision was made without consideration and with a disregard of the facts. H.T. Hackney Co. v. Davis, 353 Ark. 797, 120 S.W.3d 79 (2003). C.C.B. has not established as much in this case, and we therefore reject his argument.

Section 25-15-212(h)(6) requires an appellant seeking to set aside an agency decision as arbitrary and capricious to show that the decision was made without consideration and in disregard of the facts.

C.C.B. v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2007-01-25(h)(6)

In order to set an agency decision aside as arbitrary and capricious, an appellant must demonstrate that the decision was made without consideration and with a disregard of the facts.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a court to reverse an agency decision that is arbitrary and capricious; an agency decision without a rational basis meets that standard.

ARK. BD. OF REGIS. OF GEOLOGISTS v. Ackley · filed 1998-12-23(h)

Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h) (Repl.1996). ... An agency's action is considered arbitrary and capricious where it is not supported on any rational basis; the party challenging the agency decision "must prove that such action was willful and unreasonable, without consideration and with a disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case." ... We hold that the Board's denials of Ackley's application were not supported on any rational basis and, therefore, were arbitrary and capricious.

Section 25-15-212(h)(6) permits reversal and remand when an agency penalty is arbitrary and capricious; a daily penalty must be based on days of actual violation.

McQuay v. Arkansas State Board of Architects · filed 1999-04-22(h)(6)

We hold that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Board to assess a twenty-dollar per day penalty for each calendar day from the date each project was commenced up until the date of the hearing, and that this constituted an abuse of discretion. On this point, appellant is correct that the Board's decision must be reversed and remanded for additional findings consistent with this opinion.

Section 25-15-212(a) requires final agency action before a court may review an administrative adjudication.

STATE GAME & FISH COM'N v. Sledge · filed 2001-04-26(a)

In other words, the Commission never sought to enforce Code 25.09 against any of the plaintiffs; thus, there has been no "final agency action" to be reviewed as provided for under § 25-15-212(a).

An agency decision supported by substantial evidence is not arbitrary and capricious under subsection (h)(6).

Reynolds v. Arkansas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board · filed 2019-12-11(h)(6)

Because we have concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, it rationally follows that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

An agency decision is arbitrary or capricious if it lacks a rational basis or relies on a factual finding based on an erroneous view of the law.

Ahmad v. Ark. State Med. Bd. · filed 2018-02-14(h)(6)

To be invalid as arbitrary or capricious, an agency's decision must lack a rational basis or rely on a finding of fact based on an erroneous view of the law.

Section 25-15-212(h)(6) permits a court to modify an agency decision when an arbitrary or capricious sanction prejudices a petitioner’s substantial rights.

Charity Tarr, Aprn-Cnp, Dnp v. Arkansas State Board of Nursing · filed 2025-04-02(h)(6)

This court, however, may modify the decision of an agency if the substantial rights of a petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative decision is arbitrary or capricious. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(6) (Supp. 2021). Under certain circumstances, a penalty imposed by an administrative agency may be so harsh that its imposition may be described as arbitrary or capricious.

Section 25-15-212(b) allows an interested party to intervene at the Commissioner's discretion.

Ford v. Keith · filed 1999-07-22(b)

In addition, Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(b) (Repl.1996) allows an interested party to intervene at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Section 25-15-212(f) lets the reviewing court retain jurisdiction while an agency takes additional evidence on remand and files its findings with the court.

Oliver v. Pulaski County Circuit Court · filed 2000-03-23(f)

Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(f) contemplates a reservation of jurisdiction in the reviewing court in that it expressly requires that upon remand the agency "shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court."

Section 25-15-212(a) permits judicial review after an agency adjudication produces final agency action.

Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman Licensing Board v. Frawley · filed 2002-10-31(a)

Where there has been no adjudication before the administrative agency, there has been no “final agency action” to be reviewed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212.

Section 25-15-212 provides for judicial review of final agency action; without an agency adjudication, there is no final agency action to review.

Arkansas Department of Economic Development v. William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation · filed 2005-10-27

Where there has been no adjudication before the administrative agency, there has been no "final agency action" to be reviewed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212.

Section 25-15-212 requires final agency action for judicial review; surrendering a license before the agency rules on pending requests leaves no action to review.

Baber v. Arkansas State Medical Board · filed 2010-05-20(a)

Here, there was no final agency action necessary for purposes of judicial review under § 25-15-212 because Dr. Ba-ber voluntarily surrendered his medical license before the Board could render a decision on his requests for a closed hearing and voluntary restriction of his license.

Section 25-15-212 allows circuit courts to review agency adjudications; a licensing decision that is not quasi-judicial is not reviewable under it.

Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC · filed 2018-06-21(a)

The MMC's decision simply was not quasi-judicial. Therefore, we find that the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action disputing MMC's decision to grant the five identified licenses under section 212 of the APA.

Section 25-15-212 permits judicial review of agency adjudications, but a license disqualification made without notice, a hearing, or quasi-judicial action is not reviewable under it.

Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration; Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division; And Arkansas Medical Ma · filed 2020-05-28(a)

Naturalis controls here to the extent Carpenter Farms’ complaint rests on section 212. Indeed, all agree that the Commission’s decision to disqualify Carpenter Farms took place without notice or a hearing. Nor did the Commission hear testimony, make factual findings, or render legal conclusions. The Commission issued a disqualification letter and never acted quasi-judicially. ... We therefore reverse and dismiss Carpenter Farms’ complaint to the extent it rests on section 212 as a jurisdictional basis.

Section 25-15-212 permits judicial review of agency adjudications, but a decision refusing to hear a protest without a hearing or findings of fact is not reviewable.

Fatpipe, Inc. v. State · filed 2012-05-31(a)

The right to judicial review under the APA is limited to “cases of adjudication.” ... Therefore, we conclude that the decision does not come within the purview of the APA, and thus the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review it.

Section 25-15-212(a) permits judicial review of agency adjudications; without an adjudication, a court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency action.

Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Carroll County Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-06-02(a)

Section 212 of the APA permits judicial review of agency adjudications. ... If there is no agency adjudication, then there is no action for a court to review. Id. at 7, 549 S.W.3d at 906. Subject-matter jurisdiction will not lie under this method of review of the MMC’s actions regarding Eureka Green’s license.

Section 25-15-212 permits judicial review of agency adjudications, which require a quasi-judicial agency function.

Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. 2600 Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-06-16(a)

Section 212 of the APA permits judicial review of agency adjudications. ... Thus, only “quasi-judicial” agency functions support further judicial review. ... We hold that Carpenter Farms and Naturalis control, and, to the extent that appellants are seeking relief under the APA, this case must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 25-15-212 permits judicial review of SOSRA administrative reviews as adjudications, but requires a final agency decision.

Munson v. Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment · filed 2007-05-17(a)

Although we agree with SOSRA that section 12-12-922 does not require a hearing and thus does not fall squarely within the definition of an "order," see Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-202(5), the General Assembly's decision to place judicial review of SOSRA decisions under the APA reflects its intent to have an administrative review under section 12-12-922 function as an adjudication by the SOSRA committee. Accordingly, it follows that a SOSRA administrative review must meet the specifications for a reviewable adjudication under Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212.

Section 25-15-212(h)(4) does not apply to judicial-discipline matters.

Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Proctor · filed 2010-01-25(h)(4)

Judge Proctor asserts several errors under Ark.Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h)(4) of the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). ... Accordingly, we hold that the APA is inapplicable to judicial-discipline matters.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits reversal and remand when an agency’s missing findings prevent judicial review of its decision.

Voltage Vehicles v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission · filed 2012-10-11(h)

Without these crucial findings, the Commission has manifestly failed to support its conclusion that Voltage is required under the statute to repurchase Rainbow’s 2008 inventory and pay associated costs with sufficient relevant facts to facilitate this court’s review. ... Accordingly, we must reverse and remand the matter to the circuit court with directions to remand it to the Commission to make findings based on the correct termination date.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to remand an administrative case for further proceedings.

Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs v. Currie · filed 2013-10-30(h)

First, the statute expressly permits us to remand for further proceedings.

Section 25-15-212(h) permits a reviewing court to remand an administrative case for further proceedings.

Duensing v. Arkansas State Medical Board · filed 2023-04-19(h)

Further, the statute expressly permits us to remand for further proceedings. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212(h); Currie, 2013 Ark. App. 612.

Section 25-15-212(i) makes an affirmed agency order final for garnishment or execution to the extent affirmed, but does not make a remand to the agency final for appeal.

Arkansas Insurance Department v. Henley · filed 2016-01-27(i)

We disagree that section 25-15-212(i) confers finality for purposes of appeal in this case.