Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 96
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Landowners appeal the Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board’s 2000 adoption of Statewide Rule 68 governing storage of radioactive waste from oil/gas production.
- The propriety of the Board’s decision is not at issue; the appeal is treated as a procedural review.
- Chancery court, sitting as an appellate court, dismissed the Landowners’ appeal without giving notice as required by Rule 2(a)(2) MRAP.
- Record shows the April 2009 dismissal order lacked the required notice to the Landowners, rendering it void.
- Landowners moved to reinstate in January 2010; the special chancellor denied for lack of jurisdiction or untimeliness under Rule 60(b)(2).
- This Court reverses the dismissal, remands for decision on the merits based on the existing record and briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal without notice violated Rule 2(a)(2) MRAP | Landowners | Landowners/Board | Dismissal void for lack of notice; reinstatement proper |
| Whether the void dismissal allowed reinstitution of the appeal | Landowners | Board; chancery court | Reinstate; void judgments cannot be cured by delay |
| Whether the special chancellor had authority to reconsider after void dismissal | Landowners | Board | Special chancellor had authority; appointment not terminated; remand for decision on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 854 So.2d 7 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (directed look to MRAP for guidance on perfecting appeal after agency decision)
- American Investors, Inc. v. King, 733 So.2d 830 (Miss.1999) (Rule 2(a)(2) governs dismissal of appeals; notice required)
- Van Meter v. Alford, 774 So.2d 480 (Miss.2000) (due-process concerns when dismissal lacks proper notice under Rule 2(a)(2))
- Walker v. Parnell, 566 So.2d 1213 (Miss.1990) (clerical defect treatment; due-process considerations)
- Overbey v. Murray, 569 So.2d 303 (Miss.1990) (void judgments cannot be cured by delay; time limits do not apply)
- Barton v. Barton, 726 So.2d 163 (Miss.1998) (limits special appointment; scope of reconsideration depends on context)