Como Steak House, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Panola County, Mississippi, 200 So. 3d 417

H&G Land Co., L.P. applied for a special-exception permit under Panola County’s Land Use District Ordinance to extract sand and gravel and host related asphalt/concrete operations; application included a reclamation bond, site plans, permits, and operator lease with APAC.
The Panola County Land Development Commission declined to approve the application after hearings; H&G (and APAC) appealed to the Panola County Board of Supervisors, which held a de novo hearing and voted to grant the special exception for 20 years with conditions (hours and conformity to site plan).
Local residents and businesses (Appellants) challenged the Board’s approval in Panola County Circuit Court, arguing lack of substantial evidence and that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious; H&G and APAC raised standing and timeliness defenses and APAC later moved to withdraw from the appeal.
The circuit court affirmed the Board; Appellants appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court contesting (1) substantial-evidence support, (2) arbitrary/capricious nature, and (3) whether APAC’s withdrawal rendered the appeal moot or required reversal.
The Supreme Court applied administrative-review standards for quasi-judicial special-exception decisions, reviewing for substantial evidence, arbitrariness/capriciousness, exceedance of power, or constitutional/statutory violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board's approval was supported by substantial evidence	Appellants: record lacked adequate evidence on the six ordinance factors (traffic, fire, neighborhood character, general welfare, utilities, plan consistency)	H&G/Board: presented MDOT counts, traffic routing, fire controls, buffers/berms, expert appraisal, job/tax benefit evidence, utility letters, permits	Affirmed — substantial evidence supported Board's decision
Whether Board's decision was arbitrary or capricious	Appellants: Board ignored contrary evidence and Commission’s failure to approve	Appellants’ disagreement does not show arbitrary action; Board’s decision was reasonably debatable and supported by evidence	Affirmed — not arbitrary or capricious
Whether Board’s order lacked sufficient findings of fact	Appellants: order did not state factual findings to permit intelligent review	Board: granting permit with conditions and incorporation of submitted exhibits sufficed as findings	Affirmed — order contained adequate findings by implication and conditions
Whether APAC’s withdrawal required dismissal or reversal	Appellants: APAC was necessary/indispensable and its withdrawal moots appeal	APAC withdrew voluntarily, disclaimed interest; Appellants did not oppose the withdrawal below	Affirmed — APAC not indispensable; withdrawal does not invalidate proceedings

Barnes v. Bd. of Supervisors, DeSoto Cty., 553 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 1989) (treats special-exception approvals as adjudicative and articulates burden of proof for applicants)
Falco Lime, Inc. v. Mayor & Alderman of City of Vicksburg, 836 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2002) (explains administrative-review standard for quasi-judicial land-use decisions)
Wilkinson Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Quality Farms, Inc., 767 So. 2d 1007 (Miss. 2000) (lists grounds for overturning board action)
Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Marquez, 774 So. 2d 421 (Miss. 2000) (presumption in favor of board action on appeal)
Lowndes Cty. ex rel. Bd. of Supervisors v. McClanahan, 161 So. 3d 1052 (Miss. 2015) (bill of exceptions serves as appellate record for review)
Hooks v. George Cty., 748 So. 2d 678 (Miss. 1999) (defines substantial evidence standard)
Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Weems, 653 So. 2d 266 (Miss. 1995) (clarifies substantial-evidence as more than scintilla)
Harrison v. Mayor & Bd. of Alderman of City of Batesville, 73 So. 3d 1145 (Miss. 2011) (findings of fact required for intelligent review of quasi-judicial decisions)
City of Madison v. Shanks, 793 So. 2d 576 (Miss. 2000) (decision that is "fairly debatable" is not arbitrary or capricious)