# Ark. Dep't of Veterans Affairs v. Mallett

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 21, 2018 · 549 S.W.3d 351

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6108897

## Case

- **Full name:** ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS v. Diane MALLETT and Joseph Fabits
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 21, 2018
- **Citations:** 549 S.W.3d 351
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hart
- **Judges:** Baker, Hart, Kemp, Wood
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6108897

## Opinion text

Josephine Linker Hart, Justice dissenting.
The court failed to conduct a proper constitutional analysis in Board of Trustees v. Andrews , 2018 Ark. 12 , 535 S.W.3d 616 , and as a result, Andrews was wrongly decided. The Arkansas Constitution is a complex legal document that, to be properly interpreted, requires harmonizing a large number of related provisions. Wright v. Ward , 170 Ark. 464 , 467, 280 S.W. 369 , 370-71 (1926) ; see also Ark. Dep't of Comm. Corr. v. Barnes , 2018 Ark. 122 , 542 S.W.3d 841 (Hart, J., dissenting); City of Jacksonville v. Smith , 2018 Ark. 87 , 540 S.W.3d 661 (Hart J., dissenting); Bd. of Trs. v. Andrews , 2018 Ark. 12 , 535 S.W.3d 616 (Baker, J., dissenting). No majority opinion from this court has ever undertaken this type of analysis.
Despite the overbroad holding in Andrews , it does not annul the right of a citizen to seek redress in the courts of this state if a public official has engaged in an ultra vires act. This right is not affected *356 by article 5, section 20 and cannot be canceled by a decision of this court.
I submit that hiring a person and refusing to pay that person in accordance with the laws of this state is an ultra vires act. Article 2, section 8 of the Arkansas Constitution guarantees that no person shall be denied his property without due process of law. A person's lawfully earned wages are without question property. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss this case pursuant to article 5, section 20.
I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6108897. Public record. Not legal advice.