litigant hearing in Mississippi

2019The court began its analysis by stating: The Court finds compelling the holding in Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 1984), as to a motion for relief from a judgment being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; requiring balancing considerations between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need to achieve finality in litigation; and holding that incompetence or ignorance on the part of a party’s attorney does not give rise to relief from a judgment under [Rule] 60(b)(2) [of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure].

2019In his order, the chancellor cited Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d 219, 222 (Miss. 1984), and stated as follows: The [c]ourt finds compelling the holding in Stringfellow . . . as to a motion for relief from a judgment being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; requiring balancing considerations between granting a litigant a hearing 8 Buford filed a motion in this Court for an award of appellate attorney’s fees.

2008Considerations (sic) of a Rule 60(b) motion requires a balancing between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need to achieving finality in litigation." Id. (citing Stringfellow, 451 So.2d at 220 ; Briney v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar., Co., 714 So.2d 962, 966 (¶ 13) (Miss.1998)).

2002This Court further held that "[w]hen ruling upon Rule 60(b) motions,... a balance must be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality in litigation.... [A] party is not entitled to relief merely because he is unhappy with the judgment, but he must make some showing that he was justified in failing to avoid mistake or inadvertence; gross negligence, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law is not enough." Id. (citing Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 52.

1998"Generally, consideration of a Rule 60(b) motion requires that a `balance ... be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.'" Lose, 584 So.2d at 1286 ( quoting Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss. 1984)). ¶ 14.

1996"Generally, consideration of a Rule 60(b) motion requires that a 'balance . . . be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.'" Lose, 584 So. 2d at 1286 (quoting Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d 219, 221 (Miss. 1984)). ¶14.

1999Bureau of Narcotics v. One (1) Chevrolet Nova Auto., 573 So.2d 787, 790 (Miss.1990) ( citing King v. King, 556 So.2d 716 (Miss. 1990)). "[A] balance must be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality in litigation." Stringfellow, 451 So.2d at 221 ( citing House v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 688 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir.1982)). ¶ 4.

1998Bureau of Narcotics v. One (1) Chevrolet Nova Auto., 573 So. 2d 787, 790 (Miss. 1990) (citing King v. King , 556 So. 2d 716 (Miss. 1990)). "[A] balance must be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality in litigation." Stringfellow, 451 So. 2d at 221 (citing House v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 688 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1982)). ¶4.

2009Consideration of a motion based on Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) generally requires that a “ ‘balance ... be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.’ ” City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks L.P., 860 So.2d 309, 311-12 (Miss.2003) (quoting Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss.1984)).

2009Consideration of a motion based on Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) generally requires that a "`balance... be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.'" City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks L.P., 860 So.2d 309, 311-12 (Miss.2003) (quoting Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss. 1984)).

2003See also Pointer v. Huffman, 509 So.2d 870, 876 (Miss.1987); Guaranty Nat.

2002See also Pointer v. Huffman, 509 So.2d 870, 876 (Miss. 1987); Guaranty Nat.

2012“Consideration of a Rule 60(b) motion does require that a balance be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality.” M.A.S., 842 So.2d at 531 (¶ 17) (citation and internal quotation omitted).

2008"Additionally, the allegations and indicated evidence should be such as would convince a court that what is sought is not simply an opportunity to litigate that which is already settled." Id. (citing Askew v. Askew, 699 So.2d 515, 520 (¶ 22) (Miss.1997)).

2003Further, "[w]hen ruling upon Rule 60(b) motions,... a balance must be struck between granting a litigant a hearing on the merits with the need and desire to achieve finality in litigation.... [A] party is not entitled to relief merely because he is unhappy with the judgment, but he must make some showing that he was justified in failing to avoid mistake or inadvertence; gross negligence, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law is not enough." Moore, 752 So.2d at 1015 (¶ 6) (citing Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 20.

1991Co. v. Pittman, 501 So.2d 377, 388 (Miss. 1987) ("A consideration ... boils down almost to a balancing of the equities — in whose favor do they preponderate, the plaintiff or the defendant?" This "balancing act" is "generally addressed to the sound discretion of the [judge] and appellate review is limited to whether the discretion has been abused" as a matter of law.