Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. Eddings
2011 Ark. 47
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Eddings owns ~40 acres near Buffalo River National Park, landlocked by public land and bordered by AGFC's Gene Rush WMA on two sides and by US National Park Service land on the other two sides.
- Eddings petitioned on April 20, 2005 in Newton County Court to establish a road across the WMA under Arkansas Transportation Code 27-66-401 to -404.
- AGFC answered on May 17, 2005 and moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity and that the United States was a necessary party under Rule 19.
- Eddings argued county court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over county roads and that immunity should yield to the court’s authority; he disputed necessity of joining the United States.
- County court on November 9, 2005 found defenses waived and merits lacked merit; later, January 9, 2006, circuit court order granted ingress/egress and damages; AGFC appealed and case was consolidated for review.
- Circuit court in 2010 held Article 7, Section 28 is not self-executing for eminent domain; implementing authority is in 27-66-401 to -404; sovereign immunity remains; United States not a necessary party; reversal and dismissal without prejudice; appeal resolved on immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is AGFC entitled to sovereign immunity from this suit? | Eddings: immunity does not bar the action when the state is not the active defendant. | AGFC: immunity bars suit against the state agency. | Yes; sovereign immunity bars the suit against AGFC. |
| Does county court have authority to establish a road across AGFC land despite immunity? | Eddings: Article 7, §28 and 27-66-401 to -404 empower county court to condemn for access. | AGFC: immunity prevents jurisdiction; self-executing reach is limited. | Immunity prevails; Article 7 §28 is not self-executing; implementing statutes needed; case dismissed. |
| Is United States a necessary party under Rule 19? | Eddings contends US not required for just adjudication. | AGFC argues Rule 19 necessitates joinder of the US. | Not addressed on the merits; unnecessary to decide given sovereign-immunity ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- LandsnPulaski, LLC v. Ark. Dept. of Corr., 372 Ark. 40 (2007) (sovereign-immunity analysis focuses on whether judgment targets state actions)
- Fireman’s Ins. Co. v. Ark. State Claims Comm’n, 301 Ark. 451 (1990) (state agency liability and sovereign immunity boundaries)
- Yates v. Sturgis, 311 Ark. 618 (1993) (eminent-domain authority tied to 27-66-401 implementing legislation)
- Gravett v. Villines, 314 Ark. 320 (1993) (precedence of constitutional provisions over legislative acts)
- City of Little Rock v. Raines, 241 Ark. 1071 (1967) (eminent-domain power must be express)
- Ark. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark., 2009 Ark. 297 (2009) (immunity waiver when state acts; exception context)
- Malone & Hyde, Inc. v. West & Co. of La., Inc., 300 Ark. 435 (1989) (interlocutory review of summary-judgment denials in immunity context)
- Ozarks Unlimited Res. Coop., Inc. v. Daniels, 333 Ark. 214 (1998) (standard for reviewing summary-judgment decisions)