Lafayette County Board of Supervisors v. Third Circuit Drug Court
2012 WL 574020
Miss.2012Background
- This dispute concerns Lafayette County's alleged duty to fund and administer the Third Circuit Drug Court, including payroll arrangements for a drug court employee.
- Union County later replaced Lafayette County as lead county for the Third Circuit Drug Court, making the dispute potentially moot.
- The Mississippi Drug Court Act vests certification, monitoring, and standards in the Administrative Office of the Courts and the State Drug Courts Advisory Committee.
- The Board previously provided initial funding and managed finances for the drug court, with reimbursement from the AOC, and disputed rent for courthouse space.
- The drug court sought to hire a part-time officer, with payroll and reimbursement arrangements through Lafayette County, leading to funding disputes.
- A June 17, 2010 administrative order directed the Board to cease interference, place the officer on the county payroll, and continue drug court funding until a new lead county was designated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot due to lead county replacement | Board argued ongoing controversy; yet Union County's lead status ends the dispute. | Drug Court contends the matter is moot once lead county changed. | Appeal dismissed as moot. |
| Whether the public-interest or repeating-case exceptions apply | Exceptions should allow judicial review notwithstanding mootness. | No exception applies; issues are advisory and within Committee duties. | Public-interest and repeat-review exceptions do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alford v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 30 So.3d 1212 (Miss. 2010) (mootness exception for public interest)
- Allred v. Webb, 641 So.2d 1218 (Miss. 1994) (public interest exception for mootness)
- Sartin v. Barlow ex rel. Smith, 16 So.2d 372 (Miss. 1944) (public-interest exception for mootness)
- State Oil & Gas Bd. v. McGowan, 542 So.2d 244 (Miss. 1989) (capable of repetition, but likely to evade review)
- Pascagoula Mun. Sep. School Dist. v. Doe, 508 So.2d 1081 (Miss. 1987) (capable of repetition, but evading review)
- Strong v. Bostick, 420 So.2d 1356 (Miss. 1982) (public-interest mootness exception)
- A & F Properties, LLC v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 983 So.2d 296 (Miss. 2006) (advisory opinions are inappropriate absent concrete controversy)