Greg Bowerman

Summary

The court held that an Arkansas citizen-taxpayer had standing to bring a public-funds illegal-exaction claim, but failed to state such a claim because the State lawfully reimbursed exactly the prescription drug physicians prescribed and no unlawful, arbitrary, or misapplied State expenditure was alleged. The court also held that the prior asphalt-payment decision did not apply to these facts and declined to answer broader questions about that decision because doing so would be advisory. Justice Danielson, joined by Justices Corbin and Hoofman, concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the result but contending that the court should address and overrule the prior decision to the extent it conflicted with the court's ruling.