City of Laurel v. Sharon Waterworks Ass'n


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-AN-01368-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-AN-01368-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-11-2005
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Vacated and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Annexation - Constitutionality of H.B. 1730 - Reasonableness
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: Municipal Boundaries & Annexation

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-30-2003
Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court
Judge: R.B. Reeves, Jr.
Disposition: the chancellor signed a final judgment approving the enlargement and extension of the boundaries of the City of Laurel as to the Pendorff area only.
Case Number: 97,0498

Note: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION. Disposition - Vacated and Remanded

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTENSION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI: CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI




JERRY L. MILLS, NORMAN GENE HORTMAN



 

Appellee: SHARON WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION, SHADY GROVE WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION, SHADY GROVE UTILITY DISTRICT, AND JONES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROBERT L. ROGERS, JR., JOSEPH EDGAR FILLINGANE, TIM HANCOCK, JAMES ROBERT SULLIVAN, JR., J. ROBERT SULLIVAN, SR.  

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: Annexation - Constitutionality of H.B. 1730 - Reasonableness

Summary of the Facts: The City of Laurel petitioned to annex three parcels of land located in Jones County. The chancellor determined that the annexation of the Pendorff area, in the Southern Parcel, was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. However, the annexation of the other areas were not reasonable. The City appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutionality of House Bill 1730 When the City initially began the annexation process, it sought annexation of a much smaller area of approximately 10.9 square miles. Objectors asserted that HB 1730 required the annexation of all or none of the Shady Grove Utility District. The City challenged the constitutionality of HB 1730 claiming that it violated § 88 of the Mississippi Constitution. The chancellor found that the provision was constitutional. Ultimately, the chancellor did not include the Shady Grove Utility District located in the Northern Parcel as part of the annexation area. The chancellor did not issue an order as to his ruling regarding the constitutional issue. Furthermore, the chancellor’s final judgment did not incorporate the constitutional issue. On remand, the chancellor is instructed to issue a detailed order as to his findings and ruling as to the constitutionality of HB 1730. Issue 2: Reasonableness of annexation The party seeking the annexation has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the annexation. There are twelve indicia of reasonableness which the chancellor must consider in determining whether under the totality of the circumstances the annexation is reasonable. The City argues that the chancellor erred in finding that the indicia weakly suggests annexation of a smaller portion of the area. Some of the indicia the chancellor considered were adequate, however, the twelve indicia overall were not detailed enough pursuant to its application to each parcel. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court