Court Opinion

ID: 9662162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:01:14.268598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.325763
License: Public Domain

Larry D. Vaught, Judge, concurring. Because of the great deference we give to decisions of administrative agencies, I concur in the affirmance of this case. I write separately to emphasize the necessity for boards and commissions, which are given quasi-judicial functions, to operate within the parameters of the Administrative Procedures Act. Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-210(b)(2) provides that a “final decision shah include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated.” The majority holds, and I reluctantly agree, that the decision in this case complies with the statute. However, it is only by the thinnest thread that one paragraph out of fourteen, which is labeled neither finding of fact nor conclusion of law, meets the criteria. Surely after the direction given in Green House, Inc. v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, 29 Ark. App. 229, 780 S.W.2d 347 (1989), which is quoted in the majority opinion, the board has no excuse for delivering decisions which require appellate courts to decipher what is supposed to be “separately stated.” I assume that the board had legal counsel to assist in the drafting of the decision. If not, it should seek such assistance in the future.