Stodola v. Lynch, 2017 Ark. 181

Appellees sued the Cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock (and their mayors) alleging unlawful appropriations and illegal-exaction claims, plus city-ordinance violations, arising from annual appropriations/service contracts to regional chambers and economic-development entities.
Appellees voluntarily dismissed three claims in February 2015, leaving only the Article 12 § 5 constitutional claim; the circuit court later ruled for appellees on that remaining claim and permanently enjoined future offending appropriations.
Appellants appealed after the circuit court denied their March 2016 motion to dismiss the previously nonsuited claims with prejudice; appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Arkansas Supreme Court held the appeal was properly before it because the nonsuited claims were not refiled and thus no longer barred finality when the May 2, 2016 order issued.
Meanwhile, the Arkansas Constitution (Art. 12, § 5) was amended in 2015 to expressly permit municipal appropriations for economic-development projects and services, undercutting the circuit court’s injunction by making such future appropriations constitutionally permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Jurisdiction/finality: whether appeal is proper	Appellees: the appeal concerns only the June 26, 2015 order and was abandoned; May 2, 2016 order left court without jurisdiction	Appellants: May 2, 2016 order was final and appealable; nonsuited claims no longer bar finality	Court: Appeal is proper — nonsuited claims were not refiled and were time-barred, so May 2, 2016 order was final and appeal timely.
2. Merits—constitutionality of appropriations/service contracts under Art. 12 § 5	Appellees: Contracts were really donations/illegal appropriations lacking consideration and thus violated the pre-amendment Art. 12 § 5	Appellants: Consideration existed (economic-development services); contracts are permissible and not donations	Court: Circuit court had ruled contracts invalid under the pre-amendment provision, but the 2015 constitutional amendment now permits appropriations for economic-development services, rendering the injunction moot.
3. Remedy — whether injunction should remain	Appellees: injunction necessary to bar future unlawful appropriations	Appellants: injunction no longer appropriate because amendment validates such appropriations	Court: Remanded with instructions to lift the injunction and dismiss the complaint as moot; no damages were adjudicated.

Mountain Pure LLC v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., 366 Ark. 62, 233 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. 2006) (finality/jurisdiction principles when outstanding claims remain)
Arkansas Department of Correction v. Williams, 357 S.W.3d 867 (Ark. 2009) (court will not decide moot issues; remand to lift injunction when case becomes moot)
Munson v. Abbott, 269 Ark. 441, 602 S.W.2d 649 (Ark. 1980) (statute of limitations applied to illegal-exaction claims)