Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of the Town of Prentiss v. Jefferson Davis County
| Docket Number: | 2003-SA-00821-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-03-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Petition for special exception - Scope of review - Standard of review - Burden of proof Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Admin / Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-14-2003 Appealed from: Jefferson Davis County Circuit Court Judge: Gray Evans Disposition: Reversed the decision of the Appellant to deny a special exception to Jefferson Davis County for the purpose of construction of a new chancery court building. Case Number: 2002-034 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Prentiss, Mississippi Acting as the Zoning Ordinance Board of Adjustment |
CAROLYN BUTTLES MILLS
JERRY L. MILLS
JOHN W. DAVIES |
||
| Appellee: | Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi | DORRANCE AULTMAN WILLIAM HEATH HILLMAN |
|
|
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: | Petition for special exception - Scope of review - Standard of review - Burden of proof |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Board of Supervisors of Jefferson Davis County filed a petition for special exception addressed to the Town of Prentiss Mayor and Board of Aldermen for the purpose of construction of a new $800,000 chancery court building. A public hearing was held on the issue, and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to deny the special exception. The County appealed the decision to the circuit court, and the court reversed the decision of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen and granted the special exception. The Town of Prentiss appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Scope of review The Town argues that the court erred in failing to limit its review of the proceedings to the record, because the court conducted a private viewing of the subject premises and surrounding area. Because a thorough reading of the circuit court’s opinion and order reveals that the record supplied ample descriptive references to the property in issue, the fact that the court conducted a personal viewing of the property is harmless error that did not result in a judgment any different from the one finally reached by the court. Issue 2: Standard of review The Town argues that the court erroneously concluded that the dispositive issue on the special exception petition was whether there was public need. However, the record shows that the court stated that public use was one of the criteria identified by the zoning ordinance as subject to special exception. The court then found that the County had to prove its case as to the compelling need for the exception by clear and convincing evidence and that the County has done this and that the decision of the Town was based on factors other than substantial evidence and that its decision was arbitrary and capricious, which required a reversal. The County’s evidence included testimony from witnesses about the pressing need for additional space and the crowded conditions in the present facilities, as well as the existence of a disastrous fire hazard. On the other hand, the Town proffered no evidence other than the general concerns of one resident and the critiques of two more residents that the County should build its courthouse somewhere else. Therefore, the court was correct in finding that the decision of the Town was not based on substantial evidence. Issue 3: Burden of proof The Town argues that the burden was on the County to establish the essential elements required to obtain the special exception, and since the County only addressed the issue of public need, the decision of the Town should have been affirmed. However, the court, in its opinion and order, clearly stated that the County had the burden of proof. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
