{
  "id": 1891345,
  "name": "ARKANSAS CONTRACTORS LICENSING BD. v. F & F CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Contractors Licensing Bd. v. F & F Concrete Products, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-30",
  "docket_number": "88-265",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "297 Ark. 508"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "763 S.W.2d 86"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "304 N.Y.S.2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Misc.2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Misc. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1206830
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/misc2d/60/0919-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-210",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 17-22-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(e)(3)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-58-124",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.931,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06926253229435383
    },
    "sha256": "1d2127ccb589b4723bc86c5b78b609f897c502dbc49fe627379dd5bc056dc9f7",
    "simhash": "1:ea53174c0cbe2e65",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS CONTRACTORS LICENSING BD. v. F & F CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe only issue in this case is whether an administrative order, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, was properly served on a corporate defendant. The trial court held that service was inadequate, evidently holding service had to be the same as service of a summons on a corporation. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-58-124(a) (1987). We disagree. The order dismissing the complaint is remanded for further proceedings.\nF & F Concrete Products, Inc., the appellee, was charged by the Contractors Licensing Board with building sidewalks in Conway without a contractor\u2019s license. F & F was served with notice of the hearing by mail and that notice was received by H. Reno. The president of F & F, Mr. J. F. O\u2019Kelley, was present at the hearing and present when the judgment was entered imposing a penalty of $2,500 on F & F.\nThe board\u2019s order containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law was mailed to F & F and again Mr. H. Reno signed for it. When the order was ignored, F & F was written twice and asked to pay the penalty. After ten months, suit was filed in circuit court to collect the penalty. The board asked for summary judgment, but F & F claimed service was not proper since the president of F & F, its agent for service, had not received notice of the order. It was not contended no notice was received, only that it was not legal notice. The judge agreed and dismissed the board\u2019s complaint.\nService of an order of an administrative agency can be by mail. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 17-22-103(e)(3) (1987); Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-210(c) (1987). There is no requirement that such service comply with the law regarding service of summons. See People v. Penn. Central Co., 60 Misc.2d 919, 304 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1969). In this case notice was adequate.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Rick D. Hogan, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.",
      "Larry E. Graddy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS CONTRACTORS LICENSING BD. v. F & F CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC.\n88-265\n763 S.W.2d 86\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 30, 1989\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Rick D. Hogan, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nLarry E. Graddy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 546
}