Miss. Dep't of Marine Resources v. Brown
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-01404-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-SA-01404-COA ; 2002-SA-01404-COA ; 2002-CT-01404-SCT ; 2002-CT-01404-SCT ; 2002-SA-01404-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 02-24-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Administrative agency - Appellate review Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: State Boards and Agencies |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-11-2002 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Barlow Disposition: Reversed order of Mississippi Commission on Marine Resources |
|
| Note: | we reverse the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the Jackson County Chancery Court, and we render judgment here reinstating and affirming the order of the Mississippi Commission on Marine Resources. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
RESOURCES |
SHARON H. HODGE
JOSEPH A. RUNNELS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | SYDNEY BROWN AND STEPHANNA BROWN | NATHAN D. CLARK |
|
|
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: | Administrative agency - Appellate review |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sydney and Stephanna Brown appealed from the Commission on Marine Resources decision denying their application to fill approximately 1.64 acres of tidal marsh and to add 200 feet to an existing pier. The chancery court reversed and rendered the decision, and the Department of Marine Resources appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that once the chancellor determined that the record was devoid of any findings of fact to support the Commission’s decision, the sole remedy was to remand the case back to the Commission to enter an order with proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When an administrative agency has performed its function, and has made the determination and entered the order required of it, the parties may then appeal to the judicial tribunal designated to hear the appeal. The court will entertain the appeal to determine whether or not the order of the administrative agency was supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the power of the administrative agency to make, or violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party. Here, the chancery court reweighed the evidence. The chancellor’s order only discusses the evidence in favor of the Browns and disregards the evidence against them. Although there is evidence to support the Browns’ request for the permit, there is also evidence to support the Commission’s decision to deny the Browns’ request for the permit. Since the agency’s denial of the petition is supported by substantial evidence, the appellate courts must give deference to that decision |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
