Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
English
French
Spanish
VietnameseRegistration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Question: Are the custodian’s decisions to withhold the employee-evaluation records and release the personnel records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: Because I have not reviewed all the records at issue, I cannot definitively state whether the custodian has correctly classified the withheld records as employee-evaluation records. However, if the records are employee-evaluation records and the employee was not suspended or terminated, then the custodian’s decision to withhold those records is consistent with the FOIA. The records that I reviewed have been properly classified as personnel records that are subject to release with redactions. Accordingly, as discussed in the opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records with redactions is mostly consistent with the FOIA.
Question 1: Under Arkansas law, if an individual has an advance directive in place, becomes a ward of the State, and is then admitted to the state hospital, does the patient’s advance directive remain in place and enforceable?
Question 2: Under current Arkansas law, is the State required to honor the ward’s advance directive?
Brief Response: : In response to both questions, generally, yes. Neither the appointment of a guardian nor admission to the Arkansas State Hospital invalidates a valid advance directive. The State and the ward’s guardian generally must honor the directive, subject to any controlling court order or statutory exception applicable to the healthcare decision.
Question 1: When a privately designated road is the only means of access to a community-owned park, may the adjoining property owner prohibit members of the community from using the roadway to access the park?
Question 2: Does the fact that the owner’s family dedicated the roadway, or that the owner has apartments located along the roadway, provide legal authority to selectively exclude certain citizens while allowing others to use the road?
Question 3: If the roadway has historically been used by community members for many years to reach the park, does that long-standing use create any legal rights or easements benefiting the community?
Question 4: Under Arkansas law, what legal rights, if any, do members of a community have to access community-owned recreational property when the only route is by way of a privately designated road?
Brief Response: Whether a person may prohibit the public from using his or her private road to access a park depends on whether an easement exists and, if so, its nature and scope. This opinion analyzes the four types of easements that could apply: easements by prescription, necessity, prior use, and estoppel.
