claims as permitted by Rule 41(a), and in accordance with that rule, the dismissal of the three claims was without prejudice. When a nonsuit has been made effective, a new action may be filed within one year of the nonsuit or within the applicable statute of limitations, whichever is longer. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-126(a)(1) (Repl. 2005); Blaylock v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 330 Ark. 620, 622, 954 S.W.2d 939, 940 (1997). The three unlitigated claims were illegal-exaction claims. See Smith v. City of Springdale, 291 Ark. 63, 722 S.W.2d 569 (1987) (challenging bidding practices in an illegal-exaction claim). We have applied a three-year statute of limitations to illegal-exaction claims. Munson v. Abbott, 269 Ark. 441, 602 S.W.2d 649 (1980). Assuming that appellees’ causes of action accrued, (<HOLDING>). Thus, the appeal is properly before us.
holding that the circuit courts order concluding that it was without jurisdiction to entertain a complaint because the case had been dismissed without prejudice constituted a final order because all other claims either had been refiled or dismissed with prejudice holding subject matter jurisdiction divested because federal cause of action had been dismissed without prejudice holding that the district court had discretion where plaintiff sought to amend a count that had been dismissed with prejudice holding that although the trial court had dismissed the cause with prejudice it retained jurisdiction to give effect to the settlement order holding that because the claims were dismissed with prejudice there was a final judgment for purposes of appellate review