Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Butler v. Board of Sup'rs for Hinds Countygreen2 sentences2018Butler v. Bd. of Supervisors for Hinds Cty., 659 So. 2d 578, 582 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Colle Towing Co., Inc. v. Harrison Cty., 213 Miss. 442 , 57 So. 2d 171, 172 (1952)). 2017“The Mississippi Supreme Court has characterized the minutes requirement as ‘an important public policy issue,’ cautioning that ‘public interest requires adherence thereto, notwithstanding the fact that in some instances the rule may work an apparent injustice.’ ” Urban Developers LLC v. City of Jackson, Miss., 468 F.3d 281, 299 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Butler v. Bd. of Supervisors for Hinds Cty., 659 So.2d 578, 579 (Miss. 1995)). “[T]he policy of protecting the public’s funds for use by and for the public is paramount to other individual rights which may also be involved.” Id. ¶30. | 4 | 4 |
Lee County v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2018Wellness, Inc., 178 So. 3d at 1293 (emphasis added) (quoting Lee Cty. v. James, 178 Miss. 554 , 174 So. 76, 77 (1937)). 2018Wellness, Inc., 178 So. 3d at 1293 (emphasis added) (quoting Lee Cty. v. James, 178 Miss. 554 , 174 So. 76, 77 (1937)). | 3 | 3 |
Wellness, Inc. v. Pearl River County Hospital and Nursing Homegreen2 sentences2025In harmony with the Open Meetings Act, the minutes rule furthers the Open Meetings Act’s purpose of openness by requiring that a contract with a public board “be stated in express terms and recorded on the official minutes . . . .” KPMG, 283 So. 3d at 673 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Wellness, Inc., 178 So. 3d at 1291 ). ¶32. 2025Concerning the minutes rule, this Court repeatedly has held that “it is the responsibility of the entity contracting with the Board, not the responsibility of the Board itself, to ensure that the contract is legal and properly recorded on the minutes of the board.” KPMG, 283 So. 3d at 670 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Wellness, Inc., 178 So. 3d at 1291 ). ¶34. | 2 | 4 |
Lange v. City of Batesvillegreen2 sentences2017See Lange v. City of Batesville, 972 So.2d 11, 19 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2017See Lange v. City of Batesville, 972 So. 2d 11, 19 (¶10) (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Community Extended Care Centers, Inc. v. Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2025Yilport contends that the minutes rule is not immutable and urges this Court to apply the reasoning laid out in Community Extended Care Centers, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors for Humphreys County, 756 So. 2d 798 (Miss. 2015County, 756 So.2d 798, 800 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), which states that the reasoning behind requiring contracts to be spread upon the minutes is that the minutes rule “protect[s] the board from being bound by the unauthorized acts of individual members, .of the board or an agent thereof.” Indeed, by enforcing the minutes rule, the Court has recognized the importance of recorded, express consent by all board members to board actions, as board members are elected officials charged with the protection of the public’s funds. | 1 | 2 |
Thompson v. JONES CTY. COMMUNITY HOSPITALgreen2 sentences2025And this Court certainly applied the minutes rule to an employment contract in Thompson, 352 So. 2d 795—a case factually similar and instructive to this one. 2025There, a community hospital’s board minutes “reflected that [James Thompson] was to be given a four year contract as executive director.” Id. at 797 . | 1 | 2 |
Colle Towing Co. v. Harrison Countygreen2 sentences2021Also, in Colle Towing Co., the Court held that if the minutes rule is not satisfied, “a county is not liable on a quantum meruit basis even though it may have made partial payments on a void oral contract, and, moreover, that in such case there is no estoppel against the county.” 57 So. 2d at 172 (citing Groton Bridge & Mfg. 2018Butler v. Bd. of Supervisors for Hinds Cty., 659 So. 2d 578, 582 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Colle Towing Co., Inc. v. Harrison Cty., 213 Miss. 442 , 57 So. 2d 171, 172 (1952)). | 1 | 2 |
Arant v. Hubbardgreen1 sentence2025“First, we presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.” Arant v. Hubbard, 824 So. 2d 611, 615 (Miss. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Daou v. Harris, 678 P.2d 934, 938 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Daou v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2025“First, we presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.” Arant v. Hubbard, 824 So. 2d 611, 615 (Miss. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Daou v. Harris, 678 P.2d 934, 938 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Neesegreen1 sentence2025Moreover, an element of judicial estoppel is that “a court accepted the previous position[.]” Clark v. Neese, 131 So. 3d 556, 560 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Kirk v. Pope, 973 So. 2d 981, 991 (Miss. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Kirk v. Popegreen1 sentence2025Moreover, an element of judicial estoppel is that “a court accepted the previous position[.]” Clark v. Neese, 131 So. 3d 556, 560 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Kirk v. Pope, 973 So. 2d 981, 991 (Miss. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Mladineo v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2021Warnock’s waiver argument is “misplaced” because the minutes requirement is simply a “substantive rule[] of law—not [an] affirmative defense[].” Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So. 3d 1154, 1161 (¶24) (Miss. 2010) (holding that a motion for summary judgment based on the 4 Warnock cites Burt v. Calhoun, 231 So. 2d 496 (Miss. 1970), where in reciting the facts of the case, the Supreme Court arguably referred to the minutes requirement as an “affirmative defense.” Id. at 497 . | 1 | 1 |
Hanco Corporation v. Patricia Goldmangreen1 sentence2021Conversely, if, in order to succeed in the litigation, the defendant depends upon the plaintiff failing to prove all or part of his claim, the matter is not an avoidance or an affirmative defense.” Hanco Corp. v. Goldman, 178 So. 3d 709, 713 (¶12) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Hertz Commercial Leasing Div. v. Morrison, 567 So. 2d 832, 835 (Miss. 1990)). 1 At the outset, it is not clear that the City can waive the minutes requirement. | 1 | 1 |
HUTZEL v. City of Jacksongreen2 sentences2021Warnock argues that the minutes rule is an affirmative defense and that the City 8 waived the issue by failing to plead it in its answer.1 Rule (8)(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party’s answer “shall set forth affirmatively” nineteen listed affirmative defenses “and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” “[Our Supreme] Court has interpreted this rule to mean that, generally, if a party fails to raise an affirmative defense in its original answer, the defense will be deemed waived.” Hutzel v. City of Jackson, 33 So. 3d 1116, 1119 (¶1 2021Warnock argues that the minutes rule is an affirmative defense and that the City 8 waived the issue by failing to plead it in its answer.1 Rule (8)(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party’s answer “shall set forth affirmatively” nineteen listed affirmative defenses “and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” “[Our Supreme] Court has interpreted this rule to mean that, generally, if a party fails to raise an affirmative defense in its original answer, the defense will be deemed waived.” Hutzel v. City of Jackson, 33 So. 3d 1116, 1119 (¶1 | 1 | 1 |
| Natchez Elec. & Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
Hertz Commercial Leasing v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2021Conversely, if, in order to succeed in the litigation, the defendant depends upon the plaintiff failing to prove all or part of his claim, the matter is not an avoidance or an affirmative defense.” Hanco Corp. v. Goldman, 178 So. 3d 709, 713 (¶12) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Hertz Commercial Leasing Div. v. Morrison, 567 So. 2d 832, 835 (Miss. 1990)). 1 At the outset, it is not clear that the City can waive the minutes requirement. 2021Warnock argues that “the minutes requirement falls under the defense of illegality and constitutes a matter of avoidance which must be specifically pled.” In describing the affirmative defense of illegality, our Supreme Court has stated that “[o]ur positive law declares some subjects off limits to parties who would contract.” Hertz, 567 So. 2d at 834 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Simongreen1 sentence2021As examples of illegal contracts, the Court listed “contracts contrary to public policy,” “contract[s] to surrender custody of child[ren],” and “[g]ambling contracts.” Id. at 834-35 .2 In an earlier case, the Supreme Court affirmed its “duty and the power to declare void and unenforceable contracts made in violation of law or in contravention of the public policy of the state.” Smith v. Simon, 224 So. 2d 565, 566 (Miss. 1969). | 1 | 1 |
City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Willie B. Jordangreen2 sentences2021Mills, 467 So. 2d at 931 ; City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So. 3d 199, 206 (Miss. 2016) 15 (“We find the city waived the issue by failing to object properly at trial[.]”); Peavey Elecs Corp., 10 So. 3d at 956 . 2021City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So. 3d 199, 202 (Miss. 2016) considered the appeal of a final judgment and denial of a motion for reconsideration. 24 failure to comply with the resolution of Jackson County dated March 16, 2009 and that Jackson County is entitled to possession of the land in question.” (Emphasis added.) The motion does not state that Jackson County moves the court for a judgment as a matter of law on the particular ground that the Prime Ground Lease was void under the minutes rule. | 1 | 1 |
MS Credit Center, Inc. v. Hortongreen2 sentences2021Finally, Warnock argues that the City waived the minutes requirement under the Supreme Court’s decision in MS Credit Center Inc. v. Horton, 926 So. 2d 167, 180 (Miss. 2006), which held that “[a] defendant’s failure to timely and reasonably raise and pursue the enforcement of any affirmative defense or other affirmative matter or right which would serve to terminate or stay the litigation, coupled with active participation in the litigation process, will ordinarily serve as a waiver.” Id. at 180 (¶44) (footnote omitted). 2021Finally, Warnock argues that the City waived the minutes requirement under the Supreme Court’s decision in MS Credit Center Inc. v. Horton, 926 So. 2d 167, 180 (Miss. 2006), which held that “[a] defendant’s failure to timely and reasonably raise and pursue the enforcement of any affirmative defense or other affirmative matter or right which would serve to terminate or stay the litigation, coupled with active participation in the litigation process, will ordinarily serve as a waiver.” Id. at 180 (¶44) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| East Ford, Inc. v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Urban Developers LLC v. City of Jackson MSgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bridges v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2018State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts 10 not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Thornhill v | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Marion County v. Foxworth
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2018State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts 10 not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Thornhill v | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Smith County v. Mangum
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Board of Supervisors v. Giles
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Martin v. Newell
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Cheatham v. Smith
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2021State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Martin v. Newe 2018State Highway Comm’n v. Sanders, 269 So. 2d 350 (Miss. 1972) (state commission bound only by affirmative action evidenced by an entry on its minutes and one member’s individual acts 10 not binding on the commission); Cheatham v. Smith, 229 Miss. 803 , 92 So. 2d 203 (1957) (boards of trustees of school districts can act only through their minutes); Bd. of Supervisors of Adams Cty. v. Giles, 219 Miss. 245 , 68 So. 2d 483 (1953) (when the board of supervisors’ minutes evidenced what the board did and “showed the substantial provisions of the contract,” the minutes rule was satisfied); Thornhill v | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Groton Bridge & Manufacturing Co. v. Warren County
neutral
1 sentence2021Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Warren Cnty., 80 Miss. 214 , 21 So. 711 , 712 (1902)). ¶35. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Peavey Electronics Corp. v. Baan U.S.A., Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Mills, 467 So. 2d at 931 ; City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So. 3d 199, 206 (Miss. 2016) 15 (“We find the city waived the issue by failing to object properly at trial[.]”); Peavey Elecs Corp., 10 So. 3d at 956 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Falco Lime, Inc. v. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Vicksburg
green
1 sentence2021The statute protects vendors who provide services in good faith and who “had no control of, participation in, or actual knowledge of the error or failure by the agency or governing authority.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Mills v. Nichols
green
1 sentence2021Mills, 467 So. 2d at 931 ; City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So. 3d 199, 206 (Miss. 2016) 15 (“We find the city waived the issue by failing to object properly at trial[.]”); Peavey Elecs Corp., 10 So. 3d at 956 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Burt v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2021Warnock’s waiver argument is “misplaced” because the minutes requirement is simply a “substantive rule[] of law—not [an] affirmative defense[].” Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So. 3d 1154, 1161 (¶24) (Miss. 2010) (holding that a motion for summary judgment based on the 4 Warnock cites Burt v. Calhoun, 231 So. 2d 496 (Miss. 1970), where in reciting the facts of the case, the Supreme Court arguably referred to the minutes requirement as an “affirmative defense.” Id. at 497 . 2021Warnock’s waiver argument is “misplaced” because the minutes requirement is simply a “substantive rule[] of law—not [an] affirmative defense[].” Mladineo v. Schmidt, 52 So. 3d 1154, 1161 (¶24) (Miss. 2010) (holding that a motion for summary judgment based on the 4 Warnock cites Burt v. Calhoun, 231 So. 2d 496 (Miss. 1970), where in reciting the facts of the case, the Supreme Court arguably referred to the minutes requirement as an “affirmative defense.” Id. at 497 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Thornhill v. Ford green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.