35 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mississippi State Tax Com'n v. Maskgreen2 sentences2012State Tax Comm’n v. Mask, 667 So.2d 1313, 1316 (Miss.1995); Miss. 2008State Tax Comm’n v. Mask, 667 So. 2d 1313, 1314-1315 (Miss. 1995) (citations omitted). 7 Id. (citing Miss. | 7 | 10 |
MISSISSIPPI ESTATE COM'N v. Hennesseegreen2 sentences2004Mississippi Real Estate Comm'n v. Hennessee, 672 So.2d 1209, 1217 (Miss.1996). 2000Mississippi Real Estate Comm'n v. Hennessee, 672 So.2d 1209, 1217 (Miss. 1996). | 5 | 5 |
Bd. of Sup'rs of Harrison v. Waste Mgmt. of Mississippi, Inc.green2 sentences2003Bd. of Supervisors of Harrison County v. Waste Management of Miss., Inc. 759 So.2d 397, 400 (Miss.2000) (citing McDerment v. Miss. 2002Bd. of Supervisors of Harrison County v. Waste Management of Miss., Inc. 759 So.2d 397, 400 (Miss. 2000) (citing McDerment v. Miss. | 4 | 4 |
McDerment v. Mississippi Real Estate Com'ngreen2 sentences2002In reviewing an administrative agency's findings, "the circuit court's and this Court's appellate authorities are limited by the arbitrary and capricious standard of review." McDerment v. Misssissippi Real Estate Comm'n, 748 So.2d 114, 117 (Miss.1999). 2001In reviewing an administrative agency's findings, "the circuit court's and this Court's appellate authorities are limited by the arbitrary and capricious standard of review." Mc- Derment v. Misssissippi Real Estate Comm'n, 748 So.2d 114, 117 (Miss. 1999). | 4 | 4 |
City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Pub. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2007This Court will not set aside the action of the governing body of a municipality unless such action is "clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory or is illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis." Sunland Publ'g Co., 710 So.2d at 882 (citing City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publ'g Co., 373 So.2d 802, 807 (Miss.1979)). 2006This Court will not set aside the action of the governing body of a municipality unless such action is “clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory or is illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis.” Sunland Publ’g Co., 710 So. 2d at 882 (citing City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publ’g Co., 373 So. 2d 802, 807 (Miss. 1979)). | 2 | 2 |
Magnolia Hosp. v. DEPT. OF HEALTHgreen2 sentences1999Magnolia Hosp. v. Mississippi State Dep't of Health, 559 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Miss. 1990). 1998Magnolia Hosp. v. Mississippi State Dep't of Health, 559 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Miss. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelowgreen2 sentences1998Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelow, 670 So.2d 12, 16 (Miss.1995); Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Jenkins, 624 So.2d 91, 92 (Miss.1993). 1997Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelow, 670 So. 2d 12, 16 (Miss. 1995); Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Jenkins, 624 So. 2d 91, 92 (Miss. 1993). | 2 | 2 |
MISS. STATE TAX COM'N v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences1998Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelow, 670 So.2d 12, 16 (Miss.1995); Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Jenkins, 624 So.2d 91, 92 (Miss.1993). 1997Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Buelow, 670 So. 2d 12, 16 (Miss. 1995); Mississippi State Tax Comm'n v. Jenkins, 624 So. 2d 91, 92 (Miss. 1993). | 2 | 2 |
Mississippi State Tax Com'n v. Dyer Inv. Co.green2 sentences1993Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987): Ordinarily the scope of judicial review of the actions of an administrative agency is limited by the familiar arbitrary and capricious standard. 1991Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Mississippi-Alabama State Fair, 222 So.2d 664, 665 (Miss. 1969) (emphasis added); see also Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Dyer Investment Company, Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987) ["Ordinarily the scope of judicial review of the actions of an administrative agency is limited by the familiar arbitrary and capricious standard. | 2 | 2 |
Harrison v. Mayor of Batesvillegreen1 sentence2024A variance generally is defined as the “right to use or to build on land in a way prohibited by strict application of a zoning ordinance.” Harrison, 73 So. 3d at 1150-51 (¶14). | 1 | 1 |
Buelow v. Glidewellgreen1 sentence2012Typically, the standard of review in the appeal from an administrative agency decision is “limited by the arbitrary and capricious standard.” Buelow v. Glidewell, 757 So.2d 216, 219 (¶ 9) (Miss.2000) (citing Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Citizens Ass'n for Responsible Development, Inc. v. Conrad Yelvington Distributors, Inc.green1 sentence2012“In reviewing an administrative agency’s findings of fact, our courts are limited by the arbitrary and capricious standard of review.” Citizens Ass’n for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. Conrad, 859 So.2d 361, 365 (¶ 7) (Miss.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Jh Parker Const. v. Aldermen of Natchezgreen1 sentence2005Parker Construction Co. v. Board of Aldermen of the City of Natchez, 721 So.2d 671, 677 (Miss.Ct.App.1998), a case on which the majority's decision relies (although the majority only discusses the case in the context of the arbitrary and capricious standard). | 1 | 1 |
Riddle v. State Bd. of Pharmacygreen1 sentence2000Riddle v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 592 So.2d 37, 41 (Miss.1991). | 1 | 1 |
MISSISSIPPI ST. TAX COM'N v. Mississippi-Alabama St. F.green1 sentence1991Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Mississippi-Alabama State Fair, 222 So.2d 664, 665 (Miss. 1969) (emphasis added); see also Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Dyer Investment Company, Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987) ["Ordinarily the scope of judicial review of the actions of an administrative agency is limited by the familiar arbitrary and capricious standard. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sunland Pub. Co., Inc. v. City of Jackson
green
2 sentences2007This Court will not set aside the action of the governing body of a municipality unless such action is "clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory or is illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis." Sunland Publ'g Co., 710 So.2d at 882 (citing City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publ'g Co., 373 So.2d 802, 807 (Miss.1979)). 2006This Court will not set aside the action of the governing body of a municipality unless such action is “clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory or is illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis.” Sunland Publ’g Co., 710 So. 2d at 882 (citing City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publ’g Co., 373 So. 2d 802, 807 (Miss. 1979)). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Buffington v. Mississippi State Tax Commission
green
1 sentence2016Further, even applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to this case, the chancery court ruled, as AT & T argued, that an assessment of taxes pursuant to an unconstitutional statute would be “arbitrary and capricious by its very nature.” AT & T also argues that an assessment pursuant to an unconstitutional statute would violate “the complaining party’s statutory or constitutional right.” Castigliola, 162 So.3d at 802 (quoting Equifax, 125 So.3d at 41) (quoting Buffington, 43 So.3d at 454 )). ¶22. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Vincent J. Castigliola, Jr. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2016The Department asks this Court to apply an arbitrary and capricious standard to the 2003 Tax Commission assessment against AT & T: *1214 [W]hen reviewing appeals of administrative-agency decisions,, we will reverse such a decision only where a petitioner raises and proves “one or more of the following: the agency’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the agency’s decision was beyond the power of the administrative agency to make, [or] the agency’s decision violated the complaining party’s statutory or constitutional right.” Cast 2016Further, even applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to this case, the chancery court ruled, as AT & T argued, that an assessment of taxes pursuant to an unconstitutional statute would be “arbitrary and capricious by its very nature.” AT & T also argues that an assessment pursuant to an unconstitutional statute would violate “the complaining party’s statutory or constitutional right.” Castigliola, 162 So.3d at 802 (quoting Equifax, 125 So.3d at 41) (quoting Buffington, 43 So.3d at 454 )). ¶22. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Dept. of Health v. SW Miss. Med. Ctr.
green
1 sentence1992Mississippi State Department of Health v. Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center, 580 So.2d 1238 (Miss. 1991) speaks of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard in administrative law. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.