Prestridge, et al. v. City of Petal
| Docket Number: | 2000-AN-01856-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-30-2003 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Reasonableness - Limitation of cross-examination - Parties to action - M.R.C.P. 10(a) - Sequestration of witnesses - M.R.E. 615 - Exclusion of exhibits Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Diaz, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: McRae, P.J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-25-2000 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: Jason H. Floyd, Jr. Disposition: Approved the extension of the boundaries of the City of Petal. Case Number: 98-0930-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | H. S. Prestridge, Jr., J. Harrison Burger, Charles Tims and Wanda Tims |
JOLLY W. MATTHEWS |
||
| Appellee: | City of Petal, Mississippi | THOMAS W. TYNER |
|
|
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 - Reasonableness - Limitation of cross-examination - Parties to action - M.R.C.P. 10(a) - Sequestration of witnesses - M.R.E. 615 - Exclusion of exhibits |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Petal petitioned for annexation that included two separate areas of land referred to as the Western Annexation Area and the Eastern Annexation Area. The court concluded that it is reasonable for Petal to annex the east proposed annexation area with the exception of two properties which were dismissed with prejudice by agreement of the City of Petal and the property owners. The Eastern Objectors appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Reasonableness of annexation The Objectors argue that the court erred in finding that Petal had met its burden of proving that the annexation was reasonable. The twelve indicia of reasonableness include the municipality's need to expand, whether the area is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal, the municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised, need for zoning and overall planning, need for municipal services, whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area, past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents, economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the proposed annexation area, impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups, whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and any other factors. Petal has exhibited a need to expand due to population growth. The eastern annexation area is in the path of growth of the City of Petal, and no barriers exist between Petal and the proposed area. The evidence provided was sufficient to show that there are potential health hazards in the eastern annexation area. The evidence also shows that Petal has the financial ability to provide municipal services to the eastern annexation area. Petal has an in-house zoning administrator and building inspector and already has zoning ordinances and building codes in place. The eastern annexation area would benefit from Petal’s comprehensive zoning ordinance, building code requirements with building inspections, fire department protection and various other services. Since Petal’s incorporation, it has made phenomenal strides toward improving the city and its services to the residents of Petal. The financial impact on the eastern annexation area residents in comparison to the benefits will not be significant. No evidence was presented that would prevent the court from finding that minority voting strength will not be negatively affected. Eastern annexation area residents are receiving benefits from Petal because of their close proximity to the corporate limits, and it is only fair that they share tax responsibility. Issue 2: Limitation of cross-examination The Objectors argue that the court erred in not allowing the attorney who represented them to cross-examine western annexation witnesses and that the right to cross-examine a witness in a civil trial cannot be denied. The court possesses inherent power to limit cross-examination to relevant matters. Here, the court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the Eastern Objector’s cross-examination of the Western Objectors’ witnesses because they were not in opposition. While it may be true that the two areas have diverse interests, essentially they both contended that their areas should not be annexed by Petal. Issue 3: Sequestration of witnesses The Eastern Objectors argue that the court erred in failing to allow Eastern Objectors named in the pleading to be classified as parties and to be allowed to remain in the courtroom. M.R.C.P. 10(a) provides that in a complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties. M.R.E. 615 which provides for exclusion of witnesses, does not authorize exclusion of a party who is a natural person, an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause. Because the 500 plus names of other witnesses from the eastern annexation area were not initially listed as parties on the original complaint, they are not considered parties in this matter. In addition, the court properly excluded the eastern annexation witnesses from the courtroom when the rule of sequestration was invoked. Issue 4: Exclusion of exhibits The Eastern Objectors argue that the court erred in excluding exhibits that they claim used facts and information already in evidence. M.R.C.P. 37(b)(2)(B) allows the court to exclude undisclosed evidence of a party who fails to comply with a discovery order. Here, the court excluded a report prepared by an urban planner, because it was not produced during discovery. Because the Eastern Objectors have failed to demonstrate how they were prejudiced by the exclusion, the court did not abuse its discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
