Page:Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v. Andrews.pdf/18

 opinion ignores the breadth of its decision and leaves the state of law on sovereign immunity in complete disarray. The implications of its holding are astounding and call into question other established precedent. ''See Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 of Phillips Cty. v. Huckabee'', 340 Ark. 481, 10 S.W.3d 892 (2000) (holding that the State, through the executive branch, waived sovereign immunity when it signed off on two published notices to the class members advocating attorneys' fees); ''Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. R.P.'', 333 Ark. 516, 970 S.W.2d 225 (1998) (holding that the General Assembly waived the Department's sovereign immunity as to providing family services in child-welfare proceedings). The following list includes, but is not limited to, the specific types of actions that the majority's decision calls into question when the suit is filed against the State of Arkansas:


 * Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
 * Arkansas Whistle Blower's Act
 * Post-conviction cases
 * Land-condemnation cases
 * Illegal-exaction cases
 * Suits against State owned hospitals
 * Freedom of Information Act
 * Suits filed against DHS, including dependency-neglect cases

As discussed above, the majority's opinion transforms the State to king-like status and makes "the king can do no wrong" theory absolute. However, even under that theory, the