granting the writ for lack of venue
How later courts described this case
- granting the writ for lack of venue
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I concur, but write only to emphasize this court, in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. Lindsey, 292 Ark. 314 , 730 S.W.2d 474 (1987), recognized the venue statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (1987), applied in a suit against the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 1 In doing so, the Lindsey court stated that all actions against the Commission must be filed in Pulaski County. 2 As we also held recendy in Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000), all actions against state officers which bring into play their official acts must be brought in Pulaski County. The underlying reasoning for establishing venue in Pulaski County is that it would not be practical or good public policy to permit state officials to be drawn away from their official duties and their official residence by suits filed in distant counties arising in connection with their official acts. See Forrest City Machine Works v. Colvin, 257 Ark. 889 , 521 S.W.2d 206 (1975).
In short, I join in the majority court’s granting the Commission’s petition for writ of prohibition because this court has held venue is in Pulaski County when suit is brought against the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The Commission steadfasdy objected to venue in Stone County and did nothing to waive venue.
The Lindsey opinion mistakenly cited Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-602 (Repl. 1979), instead of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-603 (Repl. 1979), which is now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-60-103 (1987). Section 27-603 and § 16-60-103 read the same and provide actions against state boards, state commissioners, or state officers are to be brought in Pulaski County.
2 The Lindsey court, however, held the Commission waived the issue of improper venue when it voluntarily asked affirmative relief by filing a third-party complaint.