Robert Steinbuch v. University of Arkansas A/K/A University of Arkansas-Little Rock The Trustees of the University of Arkansas Michael Schwartz, in His Official and Personal Capacity Theresa Beiner, in Her Official and Personal Capacity Joann Maxey, in Her Official Capacity John M.A. Dipippa, in His Official Capacity Velmer Burton, in His Official Capacity And Terri Hollingsworth, in Her Official Capacity as Pulaski County Clerk, 677 S.W.3d 199

Steinbuch, a UALR law professor, brought a FOIA claim against the University in Pulaski County Circuit Court (Case No. 60CV-15-5690); the FOIA claim was dismissed in 2018 after a settlement, and Steinbuch later moved to set aside that dismissal.
Steinbuch alleged the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk, Terri Hollingsworth, sent an $800 (actually $834.80) invoice for preparing the appellate record and moved to waive record fees, claiming the fee violated Arkansas law.
This court previously remanded, directing the circuit court to join Hollingsworth as an indispensable party, hold a hearing on the record-fees issue, and make factual findings.
At the subsequent hearing Steinbuch presented no testimony or evidence; Hollingsworth presented affidavits and five exhibits showing the court reporter, Denise Mack, prepared and invoiced the record and received payment; Mack is not a clerk’s office employee and lacked authority to act for the clerk.
The circuit court found the record-preparation fee lawful under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-6-402 and denied Steinbuch’s motion to waive record fees; Hollingsworth’s summary-judgment motion was denied.
On appeal the Supreme Court concluded there was no justiciable controversy because the clerk did not charge or receive payment for the record (the court reporter did), and affirmed the denial of Steinbuch’s motion (the court may affirm for any correct reason).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Justiciability — is there a live controversy with the circuit clerk?	Steinbuch: the clerk invoiced him for record preparation, so the clerk has an interest to contest.	Hollingsworth: she never prepared or billed for the record; the court reporter did, so clerk has no interest.	No justiciable controversy; clerk did not charge or receive payment, so clerk lacks adverse interest.
Source of record fee — who prepared/charged for the record?	Steinbuch: clerk sent an $800 invoice (or $834.80).	Hollingsworth: court reporter Denise Mack prepared and invoiced the record; payments were made to Mack; Mack is not a clerk employee.	The record shows the court reporter prepared and charged for the record; clerk did not.
Lawfulness of assessed fee under Arkansas law	Steinbuch: the fee assessed (or charged) violated Arkansas law and should be waived.	Hollingsworth: clerk did not assess such a fee; alternatively, any fee was lawful under Ark. Code.	Circuit court found fee lawful under Ark. Code § 21-6-402; appellate court affirms denial of waiver but rests on lack of justiciability.

Thurston v. Safe Surgery Ark., 619 S.W.3d 1 (2021) (standard of review de novo for justiciability)
Palade v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. Sys., 645 S.W.3d 1 (2022) (definition of justiciable controversy)
Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks, 638 S.W.3d 274 (2022) (appellate court may affirm for a correct result even if lower court relied on a wrong reason)