John Davis v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 240 So. 3d 381

Plaintiffs John Davis and Shad Denson are long-time Jackson taxi drivers who allege Jackson ordinances prevent them from starting their own taxicab companies by requiring a Certificate of Public Necessity and other conditions (e.g., office in Jackson, 24-hour staffing, minimum fleet size).
Davis never filed a CPNC application; Denson started but did not complete his CPNC application and claims financial depletion and discouraging statements by City staff.
Plaintiffs sued in Hinds County Chancery Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging due process and equal protection violations under the Mississippi Constitution.
The City moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing plaintiffs failed to use the statutory bill-of-exceptions procedure under Mississippi Code § 11-51-75 to challenge a municipal discretionary decision.
The chancery court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed. The City alternatively argued plaintiffs also lacked standing because they never completed the CPNC process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to file bill of exceptions under § 11-51-75	Plaintiffs argued they should not be forced into bill-of-exceptions procedure and sought injunctive/declaratory relief in chancery court	City argued statutory bill-of-exceptions is exclusive remedy to challenge municipal discretionary action	Court affirmed dismissal but did not rest on this ground; noted prior precedent supports statutory procedure as exclusive avenue
Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge constitutionality of taxi ordinances	Plaintiffs claimed a colorable interest and direct injury because ordinances prevented them from starting companies	City argued neither filed/completed CPNC applications, so they were not affected and thus lack standing	Court held plaintiffs lacked standing because they never filed or completed required CPNC applications; inchoate rights insufficient

Falco Lime, Inc. v. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Vicksburg, 863 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2002) (statutory bill-of-exceptions is the appropriate procedure to challenge municipal board decisions)
Burgess v. City of Gulfport, 814 So. 2d 149 (Miss. 2002) (Mississippi’s standing rules are permissive; standing may be shown by a colorable interest or adverse effect)
Hotboxxx, LLC v. City of Gulfport, 154 So. 3d 21 (Miss. 2015) (standing is jurisdictional and an inchoate or undeveloped right is insufficient to establish a colorable interest)
Allen v. City of Kosciusko, 207 Miss. 343 (Miss. 1949) (a party not affected by enforcement of an ordinance cannot challenge its constitutionality without first applying for the permit)
Cheeks v. Smith, 152 So. 3d 1215 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (a bill of exceptions provides the exclusive remedy to appeal a municipal board’s decision)
Methodist Hosp. of Hattiesburg, Inc. v. Richardson, 909 So. 2d 1066 (Miss. 2005) (an appellate court may affirm a trial court if the correct result is reached even if for a different reason)