Bear Chaney, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Division of the State of Arkansas v. Union Producing, LLCessment, 611 S.W.3d 482

Appellees (owners of working interests in Ouachita County oil properties) disputed 2016–2018 ad valorem assessments that county Assessor Debbie Lambert calculated using AACD’s annual Guidelines and a per‑barrel "$Factor."
AACD, led by Director Bear Chaney, issues "Guidelines for Mass Appraisals of Minerals" and a computer program/formula counties use to value producing mineral interests; assessors apply AACD’s $Factor in their valuation formulas.
Appellees appealed their county Board of Equalization and county court denials to Ouachita County Circuit Court and added claims seeking injunctive/declaratory relief against Chaney (in his official capacity) to stop AACD’s guidelines/formula and certain definitions (e.g., "Newly Discovered Property").
Chaney moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity and that AACD’s Guidelines are non‑mandatory guidance (county assessors have the statutory duty to assess), so he lacked authority to mandate county assessments.
The circuit court denied Chaney’s summary‑judgment motion, finding a material factual dispute whether the Guidelines are discretionary or directory (thus implicating the ultra vires/bad‑faith exception to sovereign immunity); Chaney filed an interlocutory appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chaney (AACD director) is immune from suit (sovereign immunity)	AACD effectively forces counties to use its formulas/guidelines (evidence of training, threats to withhold funds, onsite corrections); conduct is arbitrary/illegal/ultra vires so immunity doesn't apply	AACD Guidelines are non‑mandatory guidance; county assessors (statutorily) have the duty to appraise and assess property; therefore Chaney is immune from suit	Supreme Court reversed the circuit court: Chaney entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law; Guidelines treated as discretionary; remanded for entry of an order consistent with that ruling
Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to award injunctive relief against Chaney in a tax‑assessment appeal	Appellees: injunctive relief is appropriate to stop unlawful AACD rules/valuation methods	Chaney: injunctive relief against AACD not available in tax‑assessment‑appeal procedural posture	The appellate court dismissed Chaney’s jurisdictional argument for lack of appellate jurisdiction (issue outside scope of the interlocutory appeal)

City of Little Rock v. Dayong Yang, 509 S.W.3d 632 (Ark. 2017) (interlocutory appeal permitted from denial of immunity)
Muccio v. Hunt, 490 S.W.3d 310 (Ark. 2016) (summary‑judgment standard explained)
Repking v. Lokey, 377 S.W.3d 211 (Ark. 2010) (whether party is immune from suit is a question of law)
Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews, 535 S.W.3d 616 (Ark. 2018) (legislative waiver of sovereign immunity rejected)
Monsanto Co. v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 576 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. 2019) (ultra vires exception permits injunctive/declaratory relief)
Kitchens v. Ark. Appraisal Serv., 344 S.W.2d 853 (Ark. 1961) (assessment manuals cited as guidance rather than mandatory formulas)
John v. Faitak, 594 S.W.3d 871 (Ark. 2020) (when assessing immunity on interlocutory review, courts consider whether alleged facts, if true, place conduct outside immunity)