Peden v. City of Gautier
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00546-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2004 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Declaratory action - Res judicata - Continuance - Leave to intervene Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissent Joined By : AFFIRMED Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2002 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Jaye A. Bradley, Sr. Disposition: Granated summary judgment to Appellee. Case Number: 2000-1576-JB |
|
| Note: | Nature of Case: approving the City’s annexation of the Gautier Utility District. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth Peden, Sr. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | The City of Gautier, Mississippi | ROBERT G. RAMSAY JERRY L. MILLS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Declaratory action - Res judicata - Continuance - Leave to intervene |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Peden, Sr., filed a Motion For Injunctive Relief and Motion for Declaratory Relief in the Jackson County Chancery Court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the chancery court’s order approving the City of Gautier’s annexation of the Gautier Utility District. The City filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Peden appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Summary judgment Peden argues that because the City put on no witnesses, the City offered no evidence in this matter. However, the City offered the trial court’s entire three-volume record in the annexation case as proof that the issues contained in Peden’s complaint were properly before the chancellor. The trial court may take judicial notice of available evidence in its own court files. In addition, the ruling in the annexation matter is not contained in the record on appeal. Therefore, Peden has offered no evidence sufficient to show that summary judgment was improper and the court did not err in finding that Peden’s complaint contesting the annexation was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Issue 2: Continuance Peden argues that the court erred in denying his motion for continuance which he had filed on the morning of the hearing, citing that he was in poor health and that he was no longer represented by counsel. The record shows that Peden was in the courtroom and actively participated in the hearing before the trial court, including questioning his own witness. In addition, Peden had been acting pro se since his motion was filed June 29, 2000, through the hearing of March 19, 2002, with the exception of a brief appearance by an attorney. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. Issue 3: Leave to intervene Peden argues that the Gautier Utility District was never granted leave to intervene and, therefore, was never a party to this litigation. Because Peden failed to object in the trial court, and the remaining commissioners were permitted to intervene pursuant to an agreed order, this issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
