Title: Arkansas State Highway and Transp. Dep't v. Kidder

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY and TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT v. Milton A. KIDDER and Douglas
Kidder

96-645                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 18, 1996


1.   Administrative law & procedure -- judicial review of decisions
     of administrative agencies -- standard of review. -- The rules
     governing judicial review of decisions of administrative
     agencies by both the circuit and appellate courts are the
     same; review is not directed toward the circuit court but
     toward the decision of the agency recognizing that
     administrative agencies are better equipped by specialization,
     insight through experience, and more flexible procedures than
     courts, to determine and analyze legal issues affecting their
     agencies; if the administrative decision is supported by
     substantial evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious or
     characterized by an abuse of discretion, the appellate court
     will uphold it.

2.   Evidence -- substantial evidence -- factors on review. -- To
     determine whether a decision is supported by substantial
     evidence, the record is reviewed to ascertain if the decision
     is supported by relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
     accept as adequate to support a conclusion; when reviewing the
     evidence, the court gives it its strongest probative force in
     favor of the agency; to establish an absence of substantial
     evidence, appellant's burden is to show that the proof before
     the agency was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons
     could not reach its conclusion; the issue is not whether the
     evidence supports a contrary finding, but whether it supports
     the finding that was made.

3.   Evidence -- hearing officer's findings of fact supported by
     substantial evidence -- circuit court erred. -- The circuit
     court erred in ruling that there was no substantial evidence
     to support the hearing officer's findings of fact where the
     hearing officer, on practically undisputed facts, found moot
     the appellees' contention that the billboard was nonconforming
     and pre-existed the State Highway Beautification Act because
     it was undisputed that the billboard rotated and no attempt
     was made to obtain a permit under a grandfather clause; a
     review of all of the evidence introduced at the administrative
     hearing revealed that all of the pertinent findings of fact
     were undisputed.

4.   Administrative law & procedure -- hearing officer's conclusion
     that billboard was subject to requirements of state and local
     acts correct -- circuit court's ruling in error. -- Where 
     federal regulations provided that for a nonconforming sign to
     be continued and maintained, it must have been lawful on the
     effective date of the State law or regulations, and must have
     continued to be lawfully maintained; state regulations
     specifically required permits for outdoor, off-premise
     advertising devices; and appellees failed to obtain the
     necessary permit to continue to use the billboard in a lawful
     nonconforming manner, the sign was unlawfully maintained;
     undisputed evidence supported the conclusion that the
     advertising device in question violated the state regulations;
     the conclusion of the hearing officer was not arbitrary and
     not in error.    

5.   Administrative law & procedure -- permits -- one cannot accept
     benefits of permit and then challenge conditions of that
     permit. -- One cannot accept the benefits of a permit and then
     challenge the conditions of the permit. 


     Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court; Don R. Langston, Judge;
reversed and remanded.
     Robert L. Wilson and Maria L. Schenetzke, for appellant.
     Hardin, Dawson & Terry, by: J. Leslie Evitts, III, for
appellees.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice. 
     On April 16, 1993, the Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department notified Milton and Doug Kidder that
their large, four-sided, rotating billboard located next to State
Highway 22 in Fort Smith could no longer rotate or move in any way. 
The Kidders responded that the billboard had been rotating since
1965, and its rotation was protected under a "grandfather clause." 
They requested a hearing.  The hearing officer ruled that a
rotating billboard was in violation of the statutes and regulations
governing the maintenance of outdoor, off-premise advertising
devices and ordered the Kidders to stop rotating the billboard. The
Kidders appealed to circuit court on August 27, 1993, and, the same
day, the circuit court stayed the ruling of the hearing officer. 
On November 16, 1995, the circuit court ruled that part of the
hearing officer's findings were not supported by substantial
evidence and that the hearing officer's conclusion of law was
arbitrary, capricious, and erroneous.  The Department appealed to
this court.  We hold that the hearing officer's findings of fact
were supported by substantial evidence and that his conclusion of
law was neither arbitrary nor erroneous.  We reverse the judgment
of the circuit court and remand for orders consistent with this
opinion.
                      I. Standard of Review  
     Section 25-15-212 of the Arkansas Code Annotated provides that
a person who considers himself injured by a final act of an agency
is entitled to a review of the action by a circuit court.  Ark.
Code Ann.  25-15-212(a) & (b) (Repl. 1996).  Section 25-15-212(h),
in material part, provides:
          (h) The court may affirm the decision of the agency
     or remand the case for further proceedings. It may
     reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights
     of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the
     administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or
     decisions are: 
     (4) Affected by other error or law;
     (5) Not supported by substantial evidence of record;
     or
     (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse
     of discretion.
Ark. Code Ann.  25-12-215((h) (Repl. 1996).  The rules governing
judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies by both the
circuit and appellate courts are the same.  Franklin v. Arkansas
Dep't of Human Servs., 319 Ark. 468,