Statutory service requirements, being in derogation of common-law rights, must be strictly construed, and compliance with them must be exact. State v. West, 2014 Ark. 174, 2014 WL 1515898. | ^Appellant's view of events is that Alvarez failed to appear on October 22, 2012, and it was not served with notice until May 15, 2013. It contends that Alvarez’s first failure to appear triggered application of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-84-207, and that the May 15, 2013 notice was not “immediate” and does not comply with the statutory service requirements. The time period from October 22, 2013, to May 15, 2013, would indeed not comply with the statutory requirement that the summons be served “immediately.” See First Ark. Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, 373 Ark. 463, 284 S.W.3d 525 (2008) (<HOLDING>). However, Alvarez failed to appear on two
holding that court lacked jurisdiction because no warrant or summons was issued during term of supervision holding that a deportation proceeding commenced after an order to show cause issued holding that lawful domicile terminates when show cause order is issued holding that a motion to modify a divorce decree was filed for purposes of rule 5105 when summons was issued holding that summons issued nearly seven months after the show cause order was entered was not issued immediately as required by statute