# Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board v. Pegasus Renovation Co.

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 20, 2001 · 347 Ark. 320

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690951

## Case

- **Full name:** Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board v. Pegasus Renovation Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 20, 2001
- **Citations:** 347 Ark. 320; 64 S.W.3d 241; 2001 Ark. LEXIS 700
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Glaze
- **Judges:** Jim Hannah
- **Cited by:** 31 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/9690951

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that constitutional argument was not preserved when appellee “did not get a ruling on it from the Board,” noting, too, that “the circuit court specifically declined to rule on the [constitutional] issue”
- holding that an appellant must obtain a ruling from the Board in order to preserve an argument, even a constitutional one, for an appeal from an administrative proceeding
- noting well-settled rule requiring appellant to raise argument and obtain a ruling below to preserve argument for appeal

## Opinion text

T OM GLAZE, Justice, concurring. I join in the result reached by the majority because there is unquestionably substantial evidence to support the decision rendered by the Arkansas Contractors Licensing Board. However, I am unclear what standard of review the majority is using to reach its decision in affirming the Board.
Obviously, if the Board based its decision on substantial evidence (which we opine it did), the Board’s decision could not be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. E.g., see the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-212 (h)(5) and (6); see also Wright v. Arkansas State Plant Board, 311 Ark. 125 , 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992). If the issue on review was whether the Board’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion (not substantial evidence), the review of the Board’s ruling becomes a closer question. Then the question is whether the Board’s action need only be supported on any rational basis. Someday the court needs to address these two different standards and decide which one applies when reviewing administrative agency decisions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690951. Public record. Not legal advice.