Hudson v. Jones County Bd. Of Supervisors
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01307-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-01307-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Decision of Board of Supervisors - Standing - Adverse effect Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Russell, J. Dissent Joined By : Irving, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-06-2010 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED DUE TO LACK OF STANDING Case Number: 2010-0028-CV03 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Anthony J. Hudson |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Jones County Board of Supervisors | M. WAYNE THOMPSON | ||
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: | Decision of Board of Supervisors - Standing - Adverse effect |
| Summary of the Facts: | After the Jones County Board of Supervisors relocated the Jones County Department of Human Services from Laurel to Ellisville, Anthony Hudson appealed the Board’s decision to the circuit court. The Board filed a motion to dismiss Hudson’s appeal, arguing that Hudson lacked standing to challenge the decision. The circuit court granted the Board’s motion and dismissed Hudson’s appeal. Hudson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hudson argues that he had standing to challenge the Board’s decision because he receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Hudson also claims he has standing to challenge the Board’s decision because he is defending the interest “of the unwed mothers, the elderly, the low[-]income [citizens,] and disabled [citizens].” In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided by law. To establish standing on grounds of experiencing an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant/appellee, the adverse effect experienced must be different from the adverse effect experienced by the general public. Hudson does not claim to own any property at or nearby the prospective sites of the county DHS office in either Laurel or Ellisville. Hudson would simply prefer that the Board locate the county DHS office in Laurel instead of Ellisville. It is unclear why Hudson finds the location of the county DHS office in Ellisville to be an adverse effect – perhaps it will require additional travel time or greater travel expense – but the adverse effect of placing the county DHS office in Ellisville as opposed to Laurel is certainly the same adverse effect that any recipient of SNAP benefits who lives in Laurel. Consequently, that adverse effect must be considered to be the same adverse effect that would be experienced by members of the general public who happen to live in Laurel and receive assistance from the county DHS office. Thus, the circuit court was correct when it granted the Board’s motion to dismiss. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
