Arkansas calls the opening paper a complaint. Self-represented parties file in circuit court. Natural persons may proceed pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear by counsel in circuit court. That is what separates Arkansas filing a lawsuit without a lawyer from a generic national summary. Read Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure before the background sections below. E-filing: Arkansas Judiciary eFlex. Pro se e-filing is available in many circuits; some district courts still prefer paper small-claims packets. Ask the clerk which path applies to your case type. Service: Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. Small claims: district court small-claims division (generally up to $5,000).
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in Arkansas |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning Arkansas theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.
Can you litigate pro se in Arkansas?
Natural persons may proceed pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear by counsel in circuit court.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Arkansas Legal Services and court clerks distribute small-claims and domestic-relations forms.
Arkansas opinions on pro se practice
Ron and Ramona DAVENPORT, as the Administrators of the Estate of Linda Kay Moore, Deceased, Or, in the Alternative
…ttorney personal representative is not authorized to file a pro se complaint in a wrongful-death action, but that such a defect did not render the complaint a nullity. See Davenport v. Lee, 73 Ark. App. 247, 40 S.W.3d 346 (2001). We granted the petition, pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2 (e) (iii). We affirm the trial court’s order. This appeal stems from events surrounding the…
Practitioners open Ron and Ramona DAVENPORT, as the Administrators of the Estate of Linda Kay Moore, Deceased, Or, in the Alternative when Arkansas pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "See Davenport v. Lee, 73 Ark. App. 247, 40 S.W.3d 346 (2001). We granted the petition, pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2 (e) (iii). We affirm the trial court’s order." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al., 366 Ark. 371 (2006)
…bert L. Brown, Justice. Appellant James B. Hanks ..appeals, pro se, from an order of the circuit court denying his claims for relief relating to denial of his certification to qualify as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and dismissing his complaint. We affirm the dismissal of his complaint. The following facts are taken from the findings of fact of the Arkansas State Board…
On pro se, James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al. speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "L. Brown, Justice. Appellant James B. Hanks ..appeals, pro se, from an order of the circuit court denying his claims for relief relating to denial of his certification to qualify as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and dismissing his complaint." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Bernard WHETSTONE v. William M. CHADDUCK, M.D.
Bernard WHETSTONE v. William M. CHADDUCK, M.D., 316 Ark. 330 (1994)
…the Trial Court should not have considered Dr. Chad-duck’s pro se status in determining the amount of the sanction. Dr. Chadduck initially became involved in this litigation after he was made a defendant in a malpractice lawsuit brought, in part, by Mr. Whetstone on behalf of a client. This fact was reported in the Arkansas Times newspaper. Dr. Chadduck filed a complaint seeki…
Arkansas opinions such as Bernard WHETSTONE v. William M. CHADDUCK, M.D. are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Trial Court should not have considered Dr. Chad-duck’s pro se status in determining the amount of the sanction. Dr. Chadduck initially became involved in this litigation after he was made a defendant in a malpractice lawsuit brought, in part, by Mr. Whetstone on behalf of a client." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Willis ROBINSON v. Charles BUIE, Et Al.
Willis ROBINSON v. Charles BUIE, Et Al., 307 Ark. 112 (1991)
…n attorney, all of its pleadings were signed, Charles Buie, pro se, for Advanced Head Service, defendant. The appellant was awarded a default judgment against Advanced Head Service for $685.65 plus court costs. 1 The appellant subsequently could not execute on his judgment, because Advanced Head Service had gone out of business and had no assets. Thus, appellant then filed post…
Practitioners open Willis ROBINSON v. Charles BUIE, Et Al. when Arkansas pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Charles Buie, pro se, for Advanced Head Service, defendant. The appellant was awarded a default judgment against Advanced Head Service for $685.65 plus court costs." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Virginia ELDER and Edward Elder v. MARK FORD & ASSOCIATES
Virginia ELDER and Edward Elder v. MARK FORD & ASSOCIATES, 103 Ark. App. 302 (2008)
…her automobile, Alma Boyd. Appellant subsequently brought a pro se action against Mark Ford alleging legal malpractice in connection with the tort case. The trial court found that appellant failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact and granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment in an order entered June 29, 2006. Appellant filed an appeal with this court, but it was di…
Practitioners open Virginia ELDER and Edward Elder v. MARK FORD & ASSOCIATES when Arkansas pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Alma Boyd. Appellant subsequently brought a pro se action against Mark Ford alleging legal malpractice in connection with the tort case." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Ron and Ramona DAVENPORT, as the Administrators of the Estate of Linda Kay Moore, or, in the Alternative, Ron and
…na Davenport’s sister. Subsequently, the Davenports filed a pro se negligence/wrongful death action against the appellee medical providers five days before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. The complaint alleged that the appellees’ negligent medical treatment was the cause of Ms. Moore’s death. The circuit court granted the appellees’ motions to dismiss, ba…
Arkansas opinions such as Ron and Ramona DAVENPORT, as the Administrators of the Estate of Linda Kay Moore, or, in the Alternative, Ron and are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Davenport’s sister. Subsequently, the Davenports filed a pro se negligence/wrongful death action against the appellee medical providers five days before the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Geraldine HENSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Henson, Deceased, Appellant v. — Baker, J
…nlawyer personal representative is not authorized to file a pro se complaint in a wrongful-death action, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102 correctly dismissed this action with prejudice. Although not raised by the parties, “we must raise issues of subject-matter jurisdiction even when such questions are not raised below.” Koonce v. Mitch…
On pro se, Geraldine HENSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Henson, Deceased, Appellant v. — Baker, J speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102 correctly dismissed this action with prejudice. Although not raised by the parties, “we must raise issues of subject-matter jurisdiction even when such questions are not raised below.” Koonce v." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under Ark. R. Civ. P. 38 for jury-eligible civil claims. Small claims are typically bench trials.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (district court small-claims division) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
A concrete Arkansas scenario
Here is one way the Arkansas pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A person in Arkansas wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Natural persons may proceed pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear by counsel in circuit court.
- Draft a complaint and file it in circuit court. E-filing: Pro se e-filing is available in many circuits; some district courts still prefer paper small-claims packets. Ask the clerk which path applies to your case type.
- Serve under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. Arrange sheriff or private-process-server personal service, or use Rule 4 mail/publication options when authorized. Return the completed summons to the clerk.
- Expect discovery under Ark. R. Civ. P. 26–37 control discovery. Circuit court cases often use scheduling orders that set discovery cutoffs before trial. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under Ark. R. Civ. P. 38 for jury-eligible civil claims. Small claims are typically bench trials.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in Arkansas. The evidence companion is the Arkansas evidence guide.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In Arkansas the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (circuit court or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
Arkansas pleadings opinions
JoLynn SMITH v. SIDNEY MONCRIEF PONTIAC, BUICK, GMC COMPANY, D/B/A Sherwood Pontiac, Buick, GMC Company
…ry of order setting aside default judgment October 31, 2001 Motion to dismiss filed by Sherwood November 2, 2001 Motion to dismiss filed by Moncrief November 15, 2001 Motion to extend time for service filed by Smith • January 31, 2002 Order entered dismissing Smith’s amended complaint with prejudice I. Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i) Smith’s first point on appeal is that…
Practitioners open JoLynn SMITH v. SIDNEY MONCRIEF PONTIAC, BUICK, GMC COMPANY, D/B/A Sherwood Pontiac, Buick, GMC Company when Arkansas pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "October 31, 2001 Motion to dismiss filed by Sherwood November 2, 2001 Motion to dismiss filed by Moncrief November 15, 2001 Motion to extend time for service filed by Smith • January 31, 2002 Order entered dismissing Smith’s amended complaint with prejudice I." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Joseph DEITSCH, Et Al. v. Frank TILLERY, Et Al.
Joseph DEITSCH, Et Al. v. Frank TILLERY, Et Al., 309 Ark. 401 (1992)
…The appellees responded to the appellants’ complaint with a motion to dismiss based on Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order of dismissal as to all three causes of action. The court determined that the allegations in the complaint fell short of stating that the conduct complai…
Arkansas opinions such as Joseph DEITSCH, Et Al. v. Frank TILLERY, Et Al. are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "The appellees responded to the appellants’ complaint with a motion to dismiss based on Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order of dismissal as to all three causes of action." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al., 366 Ark. 371 (2006)
…d considered the “pleadings and arguments.” Attached to the motion to dismiss by the University of Arkansas were affidavits filed by appellees Rinehart and Bercher. The circuit court is presumed to have read the motion with attachments that resulted in its order. Because this proof is outside the complaint, the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment fo…
Practitioners open James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al. when Arkansas pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Attached to the motion to dismiss by the University of Arkansas were affidavits filed by appellees Rinehart and Bercher. The circuit court is presumed to have read the motion with attachments that resulted in its order." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Lonnie WILLIAMS and Patience Bartunek, in Their Official Capacities as Employees of Arkansas State University
…es of Appellate Procedure-Civil from an order denying their motion to dismiss. Appellants assert that Kia McCoy’s complaint is barred by sovereign immunity. We reverse and remand in part and dismiss in part. ■ In her complaint, McCoy alleges that she was an Arkansas State University (“University”) nursing student from Au-gúst 2014 until May 2015. In September 2015, McCoy took a…
On pleadings, Lonnie WILLIAMS and Patience Bartunek, in Their Official Capacities as Employees of Arkansas State University speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Appellate Procedure-Civil from an order denying their motion to dismiss. Appellants assert that Kia McCoy’s complaint is barred by sovereign immunity. We reverse and remand in part and dismiss in part." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION; Arkansas General Assembly, Claims Review Subcommittee; Arkansas General Assembly
…ty, and that the statutory framework is constitutional. The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, including the motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity, are denied only as to Petitioner’s due-process and equal-protection claims that in-state and out-of-state contractors were treated differently.…
On pleadings, ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION; Arkansas General Assembly, Claims Review Subcommittee; Arkansas General Assembly speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Judgment and First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, including the motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity, are denied only as to Petitioner’s due-process and equal-protection claims that in-state and out-of-state contractors were treated differently." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
J. Sky TAPP v. Bonita FOWLER
J. Sky TAPP v. Bonita FOWLER, 291 Ark. 309 (1987)
…mplaint. Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that his “motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment,” which was denied by the trial court, was a responsive pleading to the complaint and, therefore, the court erred by granting the default judgment. Appellant, an attorney, represented appellee in a divorce action, and this lawsuit ensues from appellant’s claim of $1,000…
On pleadings, J. Sky TAPP v. Bonita FOWLER speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that his “motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment,” which was denied by the trial court, was a responsive pleading to the complaint and, therefore, the court erred by granting the default judgment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
DEER/MT. JUDEA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant v. Thomas W. KIMBRELL, Appellee; Deer/Mt. Judea School District, Appellant
…ED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOOT V. IN PART; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED. MIKE BEEBE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; MARK DARR, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; DR. THOMAS W. KIMBRELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION FOR T…
DEER/MT. JUDEA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant v. Thomas W. KIMBRELL, Appellee; Deer/Mt. Judea School District, Appellant is worth reading on Arkansas pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "ED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOOT V. IN PART; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Dezoray GAILEY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY — Brown, J., dissenting
Dezoray GAILEY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY — Brown, J., dissenting, 362 Ark. 568 (2005)
…• July 2, 1998 Complaint against Allstate • August 6, 1998 Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Answer by Allstate, denying Gailey’s residence and reserving right to plead further • June 7, 1999 Amended Complaint against Allstate and new defendant Bianca Sills; Sills added by order of the circuit court. • June 21, 1999 Separate Answer of Allstate to Amended Complaint which con…
Arkansas opinions such as Dezoray GAILEY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY — Brown, J., dissenting are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "Allstate • August 6, 1998 Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Answer by Allstate, denying Gailey’s residence and reserving right to plead further • June 7, 1999 Amended Complaint against Allstate and new defendant Bianca Sills; Sills added by order of the circuit court." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
How to file and serve in Arkansas
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: circuit court for larger or complex civil cases; district court small-claims division when your claim fits generally up to $5,000.
- Prepare the complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as Arkansas practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: Ark. R. Civ. P. 4.
Arrange sheriff or private-process-server personal service, or use Rule 4 mail/publication options when authorized. Return the completed summons to the clerk.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
Arkansas service opinions
JoLynn SMITH v. SIDNEY MONCRIEF PONTIAC, BUICK, GMC COMPANY, D/B/A Sherwood Pontiac, Buick, GMC Company
…ompany (Sherwood) as a defendant. Smith then proceeded with service of process on Sherwood. Neither Moncrief nor Sherwood answered the amended complaint, and the circuit court granted Smith’s motion for default, but reserved the issue of damages. Shortly thereafter, a jury trial was held to determine damages, and the jury returned a verdict assessing compensatory damages at $20…
Practitioners open JoLynn SMITH v. SIDNEY MONCRIEF PONTIAC, BUICK, GMC COMPANY, D/B/A Sherwood Pontiac, Buick, GMC Company when Arkansas service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Sherwood) as a defendant. Smith then proceeded with service of process on Sherwood. Neither Moncrief nor Sherwood answered the amended complaint, and the circuit court granted Smith’s motion for default, but reserved the issue of damages." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Diane M. RAYMOND v. Daniel A. RAYMOND
Diane M. RAYMOND v. Daniel A. RAYMOND, 343 Ark. 480 (2001)
…appearance"; however, this pleading did not have her waive service of process, nor did she acknowledge receipt of Daniel's divorce complaint. Rather, the pleading simply acknowledged receipt of the parties' property settlement agreement and reflected her waiver of the right to appear without further notice. These papers were filed along with a divorce decree on May 12, 1997, o…
Arkansas opinions such as Diane M. RAYMOND v. Daniel A. RAYMOND are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Daniel's divorce complaint. Rather, the pleading simply acknowledged receipt of the parties' property settlement agreement and reflected her waiver of the right to appear without further notice." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Clyde W. LAWSON v. R.P. EDMONDSON
Clyde W. LAWSON v. R.P. EDMONDSON, 302 Ark. 46 (1990)
…gment. Appellant argues that appellee failed to make timely service of process. We agree and therefore reverse and dismiss. While the procedural history of this case is lengthy, only the following factual information is necessary for disposition of the issue. On October 23,1986, appellee filed a complaint against the appellant for breach of a lease agreement. The appellee sent…
Arkansas opinions such as Clyde W. LAWSON v. R.P. EDMONDSON are cited where service of process is disputed. The court stated: "Appellant argues that appellee failed to make timely service of process. We agree and therefore reverse and dismiss. While the procedural history of this case is lengthy, only the following factual information is necessary for disposition of the issue." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Edward TRUSCLAIR, Appellant, v. McGOWAN WORKING PARTNERS, Appellee
Edward TRUSCLAIR, Appellant, v. McGOWAN WORKING PARTNERS, Appellee, 2009 Ark. LEXIS 287 (2009)
…lace of business in Mississippi and an agent designated for service of process in Arkansas. Appellant served the agent by certified mail and return receipt on March 8, 2007, with a copy of the complaint attached to a properly issued summons. The summons, however, contained an error stating that |2Appellee had twenty (20) days from the date of service to answer the complaint. Ru…
Practitioners open Edward TRUSCLAIR, Appellant, v. McGOWAN WORKING PARTNERS, Appellee when Arkansas service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mississippi and an agent designated for service of process in Arkansas. Appellant served the agent by certified mail and return receipt on March 8, 2007, with a copy of the complaint attached to a properly issued summons." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
James L. STEWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. Adam KUETTEL, Appellee
James L. STEWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. Adam KUETTEL, Appellee, 2014 Ark. LEXIS 637 (2014)
…ult judgment because the judgment was void for insufficient service of process. Alternatively, Steward contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment due to mistake or excusable neglect on his part. Because we conclude that, under the facts of this case, the alternative method of service crafted by the circuit court was not r…
James L. STEWARD, Jr., Appellant, v. Adam KUETTEL, Appellee is worth reading on Arkansas service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Alternatively, Steward contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment due to mistake or excusable neglect on his part." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Kevin SHOTZMAN and Holly Shotzman v. Mike BERUMEN III, M.D.; Laura Dawkins, R.N.; Glenda Welty, R.N.; Diana Colley
…the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In the following months, the circuit court entered orders dismissing with prejudice Dr. Berumen, Nurse Dawkins, and the Sisters of Mercy of the St. Louis Regional Community, Inc., on the grounds that none of those defendants had ever been served. 1 On September 15, 2003, t…
On service of process, Kevin SHOTZMAN and Holly Shotzman v. Mike BERUMEN III, M.D.; Laura Dawkins, R.N.; Glenda Welty, R.N.; Diana Colley speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In the following months, the circuit court entered orders dismissing with prejudice Dr. Berumen, Nurse Dawkins, and the Sisters of Mercy of the St. Louis Regional Community, Inc., on the grounds that none of those defendants had ever been served." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Stark Ligon, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Teresa Lynette
…he defenses of insufficiency of process or insufficiency of service of process. Specifically, with regard to service of process, Bloodman argued that it was insufficient because the process server did not serve her in accordance with Rule 4 of the 3 Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Bloodman also asserted that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction due to res judicata related to…
Practitioners open Stark Ligon, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Teresa Lynette when Arkansas service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Specifically, with regard to service of process, Bloodman argued that it was insufficient because the process server did not serve her in accordance with Rule 4 of the 3 Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Registering for e-filing
Arkansas's primary electronic filing path is Arkansas Judiciary eFlex.
How to register: Register an eFlex account with the Arkansas Judiciary, verify identity, and associate the account with the circuit where you will file.
Pro se reality check: Pro se e-filing is available in many circuits; some district courts still prefer paper small-claims packets. Ask the clerk which path applies to your case type.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In Arkansas:
Ark. R. Civ. P. 26–37 control discovery. Circuit court cases often use scheduling orders that set discovery cutoffs before trial.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
Arkansas discovery opinions
NATIONAL FRONT PAGE, LLC, and Curtis E. Venn, Individually, and in His Capacity as Owner and Operator of National
…t judgment, based on a party’s failure to timely respond to discovery requests. The appellants, National Front Page, LLC, and Curtis E. Venn, individually and as owner and operator of National Front Page (hereinafter referred to as “NFP”), contend that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting default judgment after they not only failed to respond to interrogatories a…
NATIONAL FRONT PAGE, LLC, and Curtis E. Venn, Individually, and in His Capacity as Owner and Operator of National is worth reading on Arkansas discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "The appellants, National Front Page, LLC, and Curtis E." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
DIAMANTE, a Private Membership Golf Club, LLC, Appellant v. Gary DYE and Linda Dye, Appellees
…ying their lot in the subdivision. Appellees both stated in discovery responses that they had read the by-laws, but they subsequently recanted those responses. Madison Pope, general manager of the Club, testified that the by-laws are on the Club’s website, and that it is the practice of the Club to notify new members of the bylaws. Because the objective evidence points to appel…
DIAMANTE, a Private Membership Golf Club, LLC, Appellant v. Gary DYE and Linda Dye, Appellees is worth reading on Arkansas discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "Appellees both stated in discovery responses that they had read the by-laws, but they subsequently recanted those responses." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
EXIGENCE, LLC v. Courtney BAYLARK — Hannah, J., concurring
EXIGENCE, LLC v. Courtney BAYLARK — Hannah, J., concurring, 2010 Ark. LEXIS 353 (2010)
…sis. Appellee Courtney Baylark served lengthy and extensive discovery on Appellant Exigence, LLC. Exigence responded largely with objections, including the objection that privileged documents were sought. As the majority notes, a lengthy discovery battle followed, with Baylark filing several motions to compel. The record is far from clear on the details of the discovery battle…
Arkansas opinions such as EXIGENCE, LLC v. Courtney BAYLARK — Hannah, J., concurring are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Appellee Courtney Baylark served lengthy and extensive discovery on Appellant Exigence, LLC. Exigence responded largely with objections, including the objection that privileged documents were sought." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
ADVOCAT, INC. Diversicare Management Services Co. and Diversicare Leasing Corp. d/b/a Arbor Oaks Health &
…right to arbitrate by answering her complaint, engaging in discovery, consenting to the jurisdiction of the court, and filing a motion to dismiss. In September 2009, Advocat filed an amended answer. This time, it attached the arbitration agreement. Heide immediately filed a motion to strike the amended answer, claiming that Advocat previously waived its right to arbitration an…
Practitioners open ADVOCAT, INC. Diversicare Management Services Co. and Diversicare Leasing Corp. d/b/a Arbor Oaks Health & when Arkansas discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "In September 2009, Advocat filed an amended answer. This time, it attached the arbitration agreement." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Kenneth RAMSEY, Appellant v. Dr. Lawrence DODD and Hot Springs Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A., Appellees
…ejudice his medical-malpractice complaint as a sanction for discovery violations. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim. We affirm. Appellee Dr. Lawrence Dodd performed surgery on appellant’s wrist on April 4, 2010. Dr. Dodd allegedly was an employee of appellee Hot Springs Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A. Appellant filed his complaint against…
Kenneth RAMSEY, Appellant v. Dr. Lawrence DODD and Hot Springs Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A., Appellees is worth reading on Arkansas discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim. We affirm. Appellee Dr. Lawrence Dodd performed surgery on appellant’s wrist on April 4, 2010. Dr. Dodd allegedly was an employee of appellee Hot Springs Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Memphis Scale Works, Inc. v. David McNorton and Accurate Superior Scale Southwest, LLC
…Superior Scale Southwest, LLC (Accurate), as a sanction for discovery violations. On appeal, Memphis argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in compelling Memphis to respond to discovery prematurely; finding that Memphis had not complied with the court’s order; finding that striking the complaint was the appropriate sanction; and striking its claims against McNorton…
Practitioners open Memphis Scale Works, Inc. v. David McNorton and Accurate Superior Scale Southwest, LLC when Arkansas discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Superior Scale Southwest, LLC (Accurate), as a sanction for discovery violations." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 2011 Ark. LEXIS 162 (2011)
…Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. to fully and completely respond to discovery requests made by plaintiffs1 (hereinafter referred to as “Tucker Plaintiffs”) and denying petitioner’s two motions for protective order on the basis that it waived any objection to discovery. Petitioner asks this court alternatively for a writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, or other sup…
Practitioners open COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT when Arkansas discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. to fully and completely respond to discovery requests made by plaintiffs1 (hereinafter referred to as “Tucker Plaintiffs”) and denying petitioner’s two motions for protective order on the basis that it waived any objection to discovery." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. v. SUSAN ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX of the
…e Francis decision should have any bearing on the course of discovery in Allen’s lawsuit, where Entergy again asserted that the root-cause evaluation reports were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product rule. The circuit court granted Allen’s motion to compel Entergy to produce the reports finding 2 that Francis was law of the case that precluded any further…
Arkansas opinions such as ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. v. SUSAN ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX of the are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Francis decision should have any bearing on the course of discovery in Allen’s lawsuit, where Entergy again asserted that the root-cause evaluation reports were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product rule." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. Arkansas applies the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full Arkansas walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: Arkansas Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
Arkansas summary-judgment opinions
Charlotte FLENTJE v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK of WYNNE
Charlotte FLENTJE v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK of WYNNE, 340 Ark. 563 (2000)
…ki R. Smith, Justice. Appellant Charlotte Flentje appeals a summary judgment in favor of Appellee First National Bank of Wynne (“FNB” or “the bank”) in her suit alleging gender discrimination under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The Arkansas Court of Appeals certified the case to this court because it contains issues of first impression under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Henc…
Arkansas opinions such as Charlotte FLENTJE v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK of WYNNE are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "R. Smith, Justice. Appellant Charlotte Flentje appeals a summary judgment in favor of Appellee First National Bank of Wynne (“FNB” or “the bank”) in her suit alleging gender discrimination under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Joy PUGH, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of John Pugh v. Ronald L. GRIGGS and Stephen R. Crane
…l from the order of the Union County Circuit Court granting summary judgment on the issue of attorney malpractice to Appellees Ronald L. Griggs and Stephen R. Crane and denying summary judgment on the issue of liability to Appellant Joy Pugh. As this appeal involves a question concerning the law of torts, jurisdiction is proper in this court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(a)(16) (as ame…
Practitioners open Joy PUGH, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of John Pugh v. Ronald L. GRIGGS and Stephen R. Crane when Arkansas summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Union County Circuit Court granting summary judgment on the issue of attorney malpractice to Appellees Ronald L. Griggs and Stephen R. Crane and denying summary judgment on the issue of liability to Appellant Joy Pugh." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Fred MASON v. L. J. FUNDERBURK Et Al
Fred MASON v. L. J. FUNDERBURK Et Al, 247 Ark. 521 (1969)
…n, Justice. Appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a summary judgment, asserting error in the court’s finding that there was no genuine issue of material facts. We agree with the trial court that there were no genuine issues of fact as to some of the appellees; who were defendants below, but find that there are genuine issues of material facts as to others. In so holding…
Fred MASON v. L. J. FUNDERBURK Et Al is worth reading on Arkansas summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "Justice. Appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a summary judgment, asserting error in the court’s finding that there was no genuine issue of material facts." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Gina GEORGE v. JEFFERSON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., D/B/A Jefferson Regional Medical Center, and St. Paul Fire &
…lpractice action. Appellant, Gina George, appeals grants of summary judgment by the Grant County Circuit Court in favor of appellees, Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc. (JRMC), and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), its insurance carrier. The trial court ruled that the doctrine of charitable immunity entitled JRMC to summary judgment and that the statute of…
On summary judgment, Gina GEORGE v. JEFFERSON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., D/B/A Jefferson Regional Medical Center, and St. Paul Fire & speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Appellant, Gina George, appeals grants of summary judgment by the Grant County Circuit Court in favor of appellees, Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc. (JRMC), and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), its insurance carrier." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Stan JACKSON v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Stan JACKSON v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 345 Ark. 56 (2001)
…tice. Appellant Stan Jackson appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee City of Blytheville Civil Service Commission (Commission).1 We affirm the order. In 1993, Stan Jackson was the Fire Chief for the City of Blytheville. In late 1993, Jackson chose to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) for fire fighters. Jackson completed his p…
On summary judgment, Stan JACKSON v. CITY of BLYTHEVILLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Appellant Stan Jackson appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee City of Blytheville Civil Service Commission (Commission).1 We affirm the order. In 1993, Stan Jackson was the Fire Chief for the City of Blytheville." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al.
James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al., 366 Ark. 371 (2006)
…plaint, the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment for appellees Rinehart and Bercher. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Fegans v. Norris, 351 Ark. 200, 89 S.W.3d 919 (2002) (holding that a motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and are not excluded…
Practitioners open James B. HANKS, M.P.H., Pro Se v. Jane Marie SNEED, Et Al. when Arkansas summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Rinehart and Bercher. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Fegans v. Norris, 351 Ark. 200, 89 S.W." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to Arkansas. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where Arkansas codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later Arkansas cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the Arkansas evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
Arkansas case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in Arkansas
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick district court small-claims division vs circuit court based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Arkansas Judiciary eFlex (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4.
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling Arkansas cases and the Arkansas Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Natural persons may proceed pro se. Corporations and LLCs generally must appear by counsel in circuit court.
- Main trial forum: circuit court. Smaller disputes often belong in district court small-claims division (generally up to $5,000).
- Procedure: Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint.
- Service: Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. Arrange sheriff or private-process-server personal service, or use Rule 4 mail/publication options when authorized.
- E-filing: Arkansas Judiciary eFlex. Pro se e-filing is available in many circuits; some district courts still prefer paper small-claims packets.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to Arkansas) and the Arkansas evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer Arkansas; Arkansas pro se; eFlex Arkansas filing; how to sue in Arkansas.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in Arkansas?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in Arkansas
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- Arkansas case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in Arkansas?
Prepare a complaint, file it in the correct Arkansas court (circuit court or district court small-claims division), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. Register for Arkansas Judiciary eFlex when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Pro se e-filing is available in many circuits; some district courts still prefer paper small-claims packets. Ask the clerk which path applies to your case type. Registration steps: Register an eFlex account with the Arkansas Judiciary, verify identity, and associate the account with the circuit where you will file.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under Ark. R. Civ. P. 38 for jury-eligible civil claims. Small claims are typically bench trials.
What happens in discovery?
Ark. R. Civ. P. 26–37 control discovery. Circuit court cases often use scheduling orders that set discovery cutoffs before trial.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read Arkansas opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed Arkansas attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official Arkansas sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.