In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo
94 So. 3d 256
Miss.2012Background
- Tupelo enacted July 3, 2007 an annexation ordinance extending to seven PAAs totaling ~16.2 square miles adjacent to Tupelo.
- Chancery Court petition filed Sept 12, 2008; notices and hearings followed; final decree annexed PAAs except part of Area 5.
- Lee County, Belden Fire Protection District, Palmetto-Old Union District, Unity District, and Saltillo appealed; case proceeded in Mississippi Supreme Court.
- Notice requirements under Miss. Code §§ 21-1-15, 21-1-31 were at issue; the court held proper notice occurred and jurisdiction remained.
- Chancery Court’s twelve indicia of reasonableness guided the review; Daubert challenge to expert Karen Fernandez was addressed and sustained.
- Court affirmed the chancery court’s finding that the annexation was reasonable and supported by substantial, credible evidence; costs were affirmed against the county and others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Tupelo petition | Myrick-like due process claims; notice complied, jurisdiction preserved | Vincent/Caples-logic that continuances must set a date certain | Jurisdiction remained after proper notice; procedural flaws found not dispositive. |
| Reauthorization after voluntary dismissal | Saltillo argues repeal via dismissal; reauthorization required | Dismissal without prejudice did not repeal ordinance; reauthorization not required | Issue meritless; dismissal without prejudice does not repeal annexation ordinance. |
| Daubert and Fernandez expert testimony | Daubert factors apply to admissibility of Fernandez’s testimony | Fernandez qualified; Daubert factors not strictly exclusive | Chancery Court’s admission of Fernandez’s testimony upheld as relevant and reliable. |
| Reasonableness of annexation (twelve indicia) | Evidence supported need for growth, planning, services, and benefits | Evidence insufficient or outweighed by concerns about effect on county districts | Chancery Court’s determination of reasonableness sustained; findings supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myrick v. Stringer, 336 So.2d 209 (Miss. 1976) (notice and jurisdiction considerations in annexation contexts)
- In re Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Clinton, 920 So.2d 452 (Miss. 2006) (notice requirements and jurisdiction in annexation proceedings)
- Fletcher v. Diamondhead Incorporators, 77 So.3d 92 (Miss. 2011) (notice and continuance implications in municipal changes)
- City of Jackson v. Byram Inc., 16 So.3d 662 (Miss. 2009) (judicial role limited to determining reasonableness of annexation)
- Vincent v. Griffin, 872 So.2d 676 (Miss. 2004) (Rule 81(d) applicability in boundary changes)
- Caples v. Caples, 686 So.2d 1071 (Miss. 1996) (Rule 81(d) notice requirements in continuances)