Page:Arkansas Lottery Commission v. Alpha Marketing.pdf/6

 The Commission and Alpha have put forth differing appellate standards of review. The Commission asserts that the issue of whether a party is immune from suit is a question of law and is reviewed de novo, but Alpha contends that the appropriate standard of review is an abuse of discretion. Given that the circuit court made no substantive interpretations of law but instead made its decision by looking at Alpha's pleadings and finding that Alpha "pled sufficient facts for each exception to sovereign immunity," we apply the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. ''Ark. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark.'', 2009 Ark. 297, at 5, 318 S.W.3d 570, 572–73. On reviewing the denial of the motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, we look to the pleadings, treating the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the party who filed the complaint. ''Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Ark. State Highway Comm'n'', 353 Ark. 721, 726, 120 S.W.3d 50, 52 (2003).

The defense of sovereign immunity originates from the Arkansas Constitution, which provides that "[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts." Ark. Const. art. V, § 20. The Commission's sovereign immunity is expressly reserved in Arkansas Code Annotated section 23-115-208(a) (Supp. 2011). Because a judgment for Alpha would operate to control the action of the State or subject it to liability, the suit is one against the State and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. ''Ark. Tech Univ. v. Link'', 341 Ark. 495, 502, 17 S.W.3d 809, 813 (2000). For instance, a judgment for Alpha declaring its trademarks valid and its exclusive right to use them would, in effect, determine how the Commission advertises and markets the state lottery, as would its claim for injunctive relief related to alleged acts of trademark infringement. Further, a judgment for Alpha on its