Arkansas Nursing Home, Inc. v. Rogers, 83-35
| Decision Date | 13 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-35,83-35 |
| Citation | 279 Ark. 433,652 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS NURSING HOME, INC., Riley's Oak Hill Manor, Inc., Charles Stewart et al., Crestpark, Inc., and Sageco, Inc., Petitioners, v. Honorable Judith ROGERS, Chancellor, and State of Arkansas, ex rel. Steve Clark, Attorney General, Respondents. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Daggett, Daggett & Van Dover by Jimason J. Daggett, Marianna, House, Holmes & Jewell by Charles R. Nestrud, Little Rock, and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Jackson & Tucker by Byron Freeland, Little Rock, for Crestpark, Inc., Sageco, Inc., Charles Stewart et al.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Little Rock by Mary B. Stallcup and Thomas Gay, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
Petitioners filed an original action in this court for a writ of prohibition against the respondent, Pulaski County Chancery Court (Third Division), praying that the respondent be prohibited from hearing and determining consolidated cases against petitioners. The petition is denied.
Petitioners were named defendants in an action filed in the Pulaski County Chancery Court by the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 70-904 (Repl.1979). The complaint sought to enjoin the petitioners from collecting certain charges from nursing home patients, to recover for past charges to patients, and to redress any unjust enrichment. After the complaints were filed the matter of an injunction was rendered moot but the chancellor refused to dismiss the complaints as to the other charges. The complaints have not been set for trial.
The object of the writ of prohibition is to prevent an inferior court from proceeding in a matter which is entirely without its jurisdiction. Duncan v. Kirby, Judge, 228 Ark. 917, 311 S.W.2d 157 (1958). Prohibition may also issue when an appeal is an inadequate remedy. Norton v. Hutchins, Chancellor, 196 Ark. 856, 120 S.W.2d 358 (1938). A writ of prohibition will not issue to prevent an inferior court from erroneously exercising its jurisdiction. Bassett v. Bourland, 175 Ark. 271, 299 S.W. 13 (1927). Prohibition may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Nor can it be used as a remedy to force transfer between law and equity courts. Butkiewicz v. Williams, Chancellor, 229 Ark. 556, 317 S.W.2d 15 (1958).
Petitioners rely upon the case of Curry, County Judge v. Dawson, Chancellor, 238 Ark. 310, 379 S.W.2d 287 (1964) to support their petition. We do not think Curry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fore v. Circuit Court of Izard County
...not be granted unless the lower court clearly lacks jurisdiction or there is no adequate remedy at law. Arkansas Nursing Home, Inc. v. Rogers, 279 Ark. 433, 652 S.W.2d 15 (1983). The writ of prohibition has its genesis in the Ark. Const. of 1874, art. 7, § 4, which establishes the powers of......
-
Littles v. Munson, 84-148
...disputed facts in this case. Lastly, the writ is issued when there is no other adequate remedy available. Arkansas Nursing Home, Inc. v. Rogers, 279 Ark. 433, 652 S.W.2d 15 (1983); Porter Foods, Inc. v. Brown, 281 Ark. 148, 661 S.W.2d 388 (1983). If the probate court did have jurisdiction o......
-
First Arkansas Leasing Corp. v. Munson, 84-4
...prohibition is not the remedy. The writ cannot be used as a remedy to transfer between law and equity courts. Ark. Nursing Homes v. Rogers, 279 Ark. 433, 652 S.W.2d 15 (1983); St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Taylor, Judge, 229 Ark. 187, 313 S.W.2d 799 In this case, the court was not wholly w......