In re the Boundaries of the City of Grenada


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-01949-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Date: 07-01-2004
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Deannexation - Court order to continue litigation - Contempt - Automatic stay - Section 21-1-33
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Graves and Dickinson, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2002
Appealed from: Grenada County Chancery Court
Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr.
Disposition: Denied the City of Grenada's request to deannex certain areas from the City.
Case Number: 01-11-247
  Consolidated: 2002-AN-01492-SCT In the Matter of the Contraction, Exclusion and Deannexation of Certain Areas from the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Grenada, Mississippi: City of Grenada v. Frank Marascalco, Mike Hyneman, Bill Williams and Joseph Lee; Grenada Chancery Court; LC Case #: 01-11-247; Ruling Date: 08/06/2002; Ruling Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr.


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: Deannexation - Court order to continue litigation - Contempt - Automatic stay - Section 21-1-33

Summary of the Facts: The chancery court denied the City of Grenada's request to deannex certain areas from the City. The chancery court further ordered the City to proceed with litigation under the Voting Rights Act in a specified manner. Four Grenada city councilmen subsequently refused to proceed with litigation under the Voting Rights Act as ordered by the chancellor. The chancellor held the councilmen in contempt. The City appeals both decisions.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Deannexation The same standards apply in deannexation cases as in annexation cases. The court should consider the same twelve indicia of reasonableness. Here, the City of Grenada presented evidence on one issue, the inability to obtain preclearance from the United States Attorney General as to the 1993 annexation. The objectors produced evidence on all twelve of the indicia of reasonableness. Their evidence on the first eleven was unopposed. On the twelfth, the objectors argued that the census data from 1997 relied on by the Attorney General was flawed and the City should have made the Attorney General aware of this. The voting rights aspect of this case was considered, as one factor, in this analysis. The City of Grenada, or any other municipality, may attempt to use deannexation, or any number of other remedies, in an effort to obtain preclearance in the voting rights context. The court may only apply established state law on the matter of deannexation absent some factual or legal proposition, or combination thereof, which would mandate otherwise. The mere presence of a voting rights controversy, as the sole impetus for a deannexation request, is not such a factor. The chancellor's finding on deannexation is affirmed. With regard to the court’s order that the City proceed with litigation under the Voting Rights Act in a specified manner, whether and how to initiate or to continue litigation is a matter of discretion for any governmental body. Therefore, this portion of the chancery court's decision is reversed and rendered. Issue 2: Contempt The City argues that the court's judgment on deannexation was automatically stayed by section 21-1-33 when it filed its notice of appeal. To construe section 21-1-33 as the City urges would render section 21-1-21 a nullity. Both statutes speak of the decree of the chancellor going into effect ten days after the appeal is decided. Supersedeas must be requested in the chancery court. The City did not do this and therefore the final judgment disallowing deannexation and ordering further action on behalf of the City was not stayed. The City also argues that the councilmen's conduct was not wilful and deliberate so that it could be labeled as contumacious, because they believed that filing a notice of appeal would result in an automatic stay of the chancery court judgment under section 21-1-33. As noted earlier, this was incorrect. The chancellor was not manifestly in error in finding the councilmen in contempt.


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