Cite as 2026 Ark. 56
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-21-282
Opinion Delivered: March 19, 2026
MMSC, LLC, F/K/A MMSW, LLC
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 72CV-19-1297]
HONORABLE JOHN C. THREET,
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
JUDGE
ARKANSAS; QUORUM COURT OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS; JOSEPH K WOOD, IN REVERSED AND REMANDED;
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION
COUNTY JUDGE; DINAH VACATED.
DICKERSON; CAROLINE COX;
STEPHANIE FOSTER; MARTY
MATLOCK; AND THE HIGHLAND
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
APPELLEES
BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice
MMSC, LLC, appeals from the Washington County Circuit Court’s order affirming
the quorum court’s denial of MMSC’s application for a conditional use permit to operate a
red-dirt surface mine in an unincorporated area of Washington County. MMSC argues on
appeal that the circuit court erred by (1) applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of
review of the quorum court’s decision rather than conducting a de novo review; (2) finding
that Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-17-211 (Repl. 2013), which expressly requires de
novo review of the quorum court’s decision, was unconstitutional; and (3) finding that the
quorum court’s denial of its application was not arbitrary and capricious. We reverse and
remand.
I. Background
In 2018, MMSC, operating as Heritage Farms, requested a conditional use permit
from Washington County. It sought to operate a red-dirt surface mine on approximately
twenty acres in an unincorporated area of the county. This property was zoned for
“agricultural and single-family residential” uses only.
The county planning office prepared a packet with the details of MMSC’s
application, which was to be heard by the Washington County Planning Board. The
planning office staff withheld a recommendation on whether the permit should have been
granted or denied.
The planning board voted to deny MMSC’s application for a conditional use permit.
MMSC appealed the decision to the quorum court. The quorum court ultimately voted to
uphold the planning board’s denial of the permit. The decision was reflected in Washington
County Ordinance No. 2019-26.
MMSC appealed to the Washington County Circuit Court. Dinah Dickerson,
Caroline Cox, Stephanie Foster, Marty Matlock, and the Highland Community Association
moved to intervene as “residents, landowners, and a neighborhood association” near the site
of the proposed mine. The circuit court granted the motion over MMSC’s objection.
MMSC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the quorum court’s denial of its
application was “arbitrary, capricious, and against the objective evidence” that was
presented. Respondents, Washington County, the Washington County Quorum Court,
and Joseph K. Wood, in his official capacity as Washington County judge, responded,
asserting that a genuine dispute remained as to whether MMSC satisfied the criteria set out
2
in Washington County Code of Ordinances § 11-200. Intervenors also responded, arguing
that MMSC’s motion should be denied for failure to cite a standard of review or include a
discussion as to whether the quorum court’s action was legislative or administrative in
nature. They also argued that the evidence presented weighed in favor of denying the
application under the criteria for approval of conditional use permits set forth in Washington
County Code of Ordinances § 11-200.
Intervenors then moved for summary judgment, contending that the arbitrary-andcapricious standard of review for the quorum court’s action is proper because denial of the
conditional use permit was legislative in nature. They further argued that a de novo jurytrial review under Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-17-211 would violate the Arkansas
Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine. And they argued that the record supports a
rational basis for the quorum court’s denial of MMSC’s application.
The circuit court denied MMSC’s motion for summary judgment. Intervenors’
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The circuit court found that the appeal was
from a legislative matter; therefore, the appropriate standard of review is whether the
quorum court’s denial of MMSC’s application was arbitrary and capricious. The circuit
court also determined that there were genuine issues of material fact that remained.
Following a final hearing, the circuit court entered an order finding Arkansas Code
Annotated section 14-17-211 unconstitutional “to the extent it purports to grant de novo
review of county legislative zoning issues[.]” In addition, the circuit court applied the
arbitrary-and-capricious standard and concluded that a rational basis existed in the record to
3
support the quorum court’s decision to adopt an ordinance denying MMSC’s conditional
use permit.
MMSC appealed, and our court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order 12.
MMSC sought this court’s review, arguing that the court of appeals applied the incorrect
standard of review. We granted review. When we grant review of a decision by the court
of appeals, we review the case as though the appeal had originally been filed in this court.
Scoggins v. Medlock, 2011 Ark. 194, 381 S.W.3d 781.
II. Discussion
We first consider whether the circuit court should have reviewed the quorum court’s
decision under a de novo standard. We review a circuit court’s conclusion on a question of
law, such as standard-of-review selection, de novo. See Ark. Pub. Defender Comm’n v. Pulaski
Cty. Circuit Court, 2010 Ark. 224, 365 S.W.3d 193.
Whether de novo review or the arbitrary-and-capricious standard applies at the
circuit court stage depends on whether the quorum court’s decision was quasi-judicial or
administrative in nature or if it was legislative. If a municipal body is acting in a quasi-judicial
or administrative capacity, de novo review is proper. See City of Fort Smith v. McCutchen,
372 Ark. 541, 545, 279 S.W.3d 78, 81 (2008). However, we have held that when a body
is exercising its legislative power, courts will review its decisions only to determine whether
1
In affirming, the court of appeals relied on Bolen v. Washington County Zoning Bd. of Adjustments, 2011 Ark. App. 319, 384 S.W.3d 33. In that case, the Washington County ordinances at issue were the same as those in this case, and the court of appeals held that the grant or denial of a conditional use permit under this scheme is a legislative act. Pursuant to our decision today, Bolen is overruled.
4
they are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. PH, LLC v. City of Conway, 2009 Ark. 504,
at 4, 344 S.W.3d 660, 663 (2009). “The crucial test for determining what is legislative and
what is quasi-judicial is whether the ordinance is one making a new law or executing a law
already in existence.” Id. at 8, 344 S.W.3d at 665 (quoting Camden Cmty. Dev. Corp. v.
Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 373, 5 S.W.3d 439, 442 (1999)).
Under Article VI of the Washington County Code of Zoning Ordinances,
unincorporated areas of the county are, by default, zoned agricultural and single-family
residential. Washington County Code of Ordinances § 11-194 (2008). Agricultural uses
include the care and production of livestock products, and the planting, cultivating,
harvesting, and processing of crops and timber. Id. § 11-195(a)(1)–(2). Single-family
residential means a detached dwelling for occupancy of one family. Id. § 11-195(b). All
other proposed uses, outside of agricultural and single-family residential, are declared
conditional uses and may be permitted. Id. § 11-196.
The planning board may authorize a conditional use if it finds:
(a) That a written application has been filed with the Planning Office and the
appropriate fee has been paid.
(b) That the applicant has provided proof that each property owner as set out
in section 11-204 has been notified by return receipt mail.
(c) That adequate utilities, roads, drainage and other public services are
available and adequate or will be made available and adequate if the use is
granted.
(d) That the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
(e) That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use
will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals,
comfort or general welfare.
5
(f) That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the surrounding area for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values within the surrounding area.
(g) That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area for uses
permitted in the zone.
Id. § 11-200. If the board denies the application, an applicant may appeal to the quorum
court. Id. § 11-206. If the quorum court affirms the denial, the applicant may appeal to the
circuit court. Id.; Ark. Code Ann. § 14-17-211.
MMSC argues that the quorum court’s denial of its conditional use application
pursuant to the above scheme was quasi-judicial rather than legislative; thus, the circuit
court was required to conduct a de novo review. It contends that the failure to apply the
correct standard of review constitutes reversible error.
The controlling case on this matter is King’s Ranch of Jonesboro, Inc. v. City of Jonesboro,
2011 Ark. 123. There, King’s Ranch sought a conditional use permit from the City of
Jonesboro to operate a children’s home. The application was denied by the City’s planning
commission and again by the city council. King’s Ranch appealed to the circuit court, which
found that the city council’s denial of the conditional use permit was a legislative act and
applied a rational-basis review to affirm the decision.
On appeal to this court, we reversed and remanded, holding that “a decision granting
or denying an application for a conditional use is a quasi-judicial act.” Id. at 2. We found
that under the provisions of the City’s ordinance, a decision on a conditional use permit is
reached by applying the facts to the existing law rather than creating a new one. Id. at 4.
Importantly, we noted that the ordinance required the planning commission to consider
6
eight factors, and that a decision must be made that includes findings of whether “the
proposed use is within the provision of conditional uses as set out in this ordinance,”
whether the proposed use conforms to applicable provisions of the ordinance, whether it is
“not inconsistent with requirements of this ordinance” and whether it is in “accordance
with provisions of this ordinance[.]” Id. at 5 (quoting Jonesboro, Ark., Code of Ordinances
§ 117-198(2010)).
We found that it was “clear that a decision on a conditional use application requires
an application of the facts to the existing provisions of the ordinance, and a judgment on
whether the conditional use should be granted under the existing ordinance provisions.” Id.
at 6. Accordingly, we concluded that the city council’s decision was a quasi-judicial act
based on an application of the facts to existing provisions. Id.
Similarly, in this case, the planning board and, in turn, the quorum court, were
required to apply the facts of MMSC’s application to seven factors set forth in the county
ordinances. This included whether “the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
area,” whether the “establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will
not be detrimental to . . . [the] general welfare,” whether “the conditional use will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area,” and whether
“the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding area for uses permitted in the zone.”
Washington County Code of Ordinances § 11-200. The decision on the application did
not amend the ordinance; therefore, there was no legislative act. Instead, the quorum court’s
action was quasi-judicial because it based its denial on existing ordinance provisions.
7
Consequently, the circuit court erred in finding that the quorum court was acting
legislatively and applying an arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review.
Given that we conclude the circuit court applied the wrong standard of review, we
do not reach MMSC’s remaining arguments. We need not pass on the constitutionality of
Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-17-211, as it is not essential to deciding the case.
Williams v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., 2021 Ark. 14, 615 S.W.3d 721. Furthermore, the
question whether the quorum court acted arbitrarily and capriciously is moot, and we do
not address moot issues. Citizens for a Better Pope Cty. v. Cross, 2020 Ark. 279, 606 S.W.3d
580 (per curiam).
Reversed and remanded; court of appeals’ opinion vacated.
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Joshua C. Ashley (Little Rock) and Kael K. Bowling
(Rogers), for appellant.
Noland Law Firm, P.A., by: Ross Noland, for appellees Dinah Dickerson, Caroline
Cox, Stephanie Foster, Marty Matlock, and the Highland Community Association.
Brian R. Lester, for appellees Washington County, the Quorum Court of Washington
County, and Joseph K. Wood, in his official capacity as County Judge.
8