Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Arkansas, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if holding the trial in that jurisdiction would be inconvenient, despite the court having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While the plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, especially if the plaintiff is a resident of the forum state, this preference is not absolute. A defendant can argue that the case should be dismissed if private and public interest factors suggest that another forum is more appropriate and has a stronger connection to the case. Factors considered may include the location of witnesses, where the events in question took place, and the burden on the court system. The ultimate decision is at the discretion of the trial court, which will weigh these factors to determine whether to dismiss the case in favor of a more suitable jurisdiction.