Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n & Jeff Crow v. Heslep
2019 Ark. 226
| Ark. | 2019Background
- The Hesleps sued the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AGFC) and its director after AGFC locked a gate on a road across a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) that the Hesleps claim is their long-standing access to their property north of the WMA.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief (including an order to restore access and allow maintenance), and alleged AGFC’s actions were ultra vires and amounted to an unconstitutional taking; they disclaimed seeking monetary damages.
- AGFC moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity under Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20 and opposed the temporary injunction; the circuit court denied dismissal as to AGFC, granted a temporary injunction ordering AGFC to provide a key and restore vehicular access, and exempted bond.
- AGFC appealed interlocutorily from the denial of sovereign-immunity dismissal and the grant of the temporary injunction.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed denial of dismissal (sovereign-immunity exception permitted) but reversed and dissolved the temporary injunction for failure to comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 65 (order lacked stated reasons and the court failed to require security).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the suit | Hesleps: AGFC acted illegally/ultra vires by blocking longstanding access; thus injunctive/declaratory relief is permitted | AGFC: Sovereign immunity bars suit against State agency and injunctive/declaratory relief that would control State action | Court: Denied dismissal — allegations of illegal/ultra vires conduct fall within exceptions to sovereign immunity and must be accepted at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Whether monetary damages are barred by sovereign immunity | Hesleps: Not seeking monetary relief | AGFC: Count IV alleges a taking and requests compensation | Court: No monetary relief sought in prayer; sovereign immunity does bar damages but not plaintiff’s non-monetary claims |
| Whether Eddings controls (establishing roads across AGFC land) | Hesleps: Different — they allege ongoing illegal deprivation of access rather than an attempt to establish a new road | AGFC: Eddings shows sovereign immunity should prevail | Court: Distinguished Eddings; here plaintiffs pled illegality and ongoing deprivation, so Eddings does not mandate dismissal |
| Validity of the temporary injunction | Hesleps: Needed to restore status quo; waiver argument on procedural objections | AGFC: Injunction deficient under Rule 65 — lacks findings/reasons and failed to require security; equity did not favor injunction | Court: Reversed injunction — failed to state reasons per Rule 65(d) and failed to require security per Rule 65(c); remanded for proper proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Eddings, 378 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2011) (held AGFC entitled to sovereign immunity re county road claim)
- Ark. State Med. Bd. v. Byers, 521 S.W.3d 459 (Ark. 2017) (discusses exceptions to sovereign immunity for illegal or arbitrary agency action)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. Lindsey, 771 S.W.2d 769 (Ark. 1989) (Commission cannot use authority to deny constitutional rights of others)
- Owners Ass'n of Foxcroft Woods, Inc. v. Foxglen Assocs., 57 S.W.3d 187 (Ark. 2001) (elements required to establish easement by prescription)
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Ark. State Highway Comm'n, 120 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. 2003) (sovereign immunity bars claims that would require payment from State treasury)