Opinion ID: 6111094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lake View

Text: The State asserts that, pursuant to Lake View , it is immune from a suit of attorney's fees. In Lake View , this court stated, The State is correct that Article 5, § 20, provides that the State shall never be a defendant in any of her courts. Moreover, this court has said that tapping the State's treasury for payment of damages will render the State a defendant. See, e.g. , Newton v. Etoch , 332 Ark. 325 , 965 S.W.2d 96 (1998). Here, it is the State's treasury that would pay either on a pro rata basis from revenues allocated to those school districts that benefitted from the Lake View litigation or from the State coffers. Thus, the State's treasury would ultimately be liable for legal fees. We hold that the sovereign-immunity doctrine applies to this case. Lake View , 340 Ark. at 496 , 10 S.W.3d at 901 . Notwithstanding this court's holding that sovereign immunity applied, we ultimately concluded that the State had waived its sovereign-immunity defense to payment of those fees. Id. at 496 , 10 S.W.3d at 901 . This court reasoned that when the State of Arkansas signed off in two published notices to the class members advocating that attorneys' fees be paid and continued to push for payment of attorneys' fees even after the chancery court refused to sign the Agreed Order, it waived its sovereign immunity defense to payment of those fees. Id. at 496 , 10 S.W.3d at 901 . Only after holding that the State had waived sovereign immunity did this court allow an award of attorney's fees under a substantial-economic-benefit theory because a substantial economic benefit ha[d] accrued not only to the poorer school districts as a direct result of Lake View's efforts but to the state as a whole. Id. at 495 , 10 S.W.3d at 900 .