Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (2026)
Dismissal; grounds; appeal
✓ current as of July 2026
Any defendant may, not less than five (5) days prior to the date fixed for the hearing of the complaint and in the same court where the complaint is pending, serve and file a motion to dismiss under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on a ny of the following grounds:
- (1) that the plaintiff seeking to exercise the right of eminent domain is not, in character, such a corporation, association, district or other legal entity as is entitled to the right;
- (2) that there is no public necessity for the taking of the particular property or a part thereof which it is proposed to condemn; or
- (3) that the contemplated use alleged to be a public use is not in law a public use for which private property may be taken or damaged. Any such motion, if served and filed, shall be heard and decided by the judge as a preference proceeding, without a jury, prior to the hearing on the complaint. Any party may appeal directly to the Supreme Court from an order overruling or granting any such motion to dismiss, as in other cases, but if the order be to overrule the motion, the appeal therefrom shall not operate as a supersedeas and the court of eminent domain may nevertheless proceed with the trial on the complaint. Any appeal from an order overruling or granting a motion to dismiss shall be a preference action in the Supreme Court and advanced on the docket as appropriate.
Codes, 1942, § 2749-08; Laws, 1971, ch. 520, § 8; Laws, 1991, ch. 573, § 64, eff. 7/1/1991.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2021 · leading case: Mayor v. Thomas, 645 So. 2d 940 (Miss. 1994).
Mayor v. Thomas, 645 So. 2d 940 (Miss. 1994). “The trial court was also concerned with Rogers' testimony that it was totally up to Harrah's to determine how Thomas' property was to be used, and that no City employee or Harrah's employee ever testified as to how the property would actually be used.”
Morley v. Jackson Redevelopment Auth., 632 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 1994). “The condemnee may assert the lack of public necessity by virtue of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (1972), which allows a defendant to file a motion at any time not less than five days prior to the hearing challenging, among other things, that the taking is not one for public use.”
Cheryl L. High v. Todd Kuhn, 191 So. 3d 113 (Miss. 2016). “]” See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (Rev.2004). So as the court saw it, “the constitutionality of Section 1‡0” need not be determined.”
Mcdonald's Corp. v. Robinson Indus., 592 So. 2d 927 (Miss. 1992). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-13 states that separate causes of action would be tried separately with the empowering of a twelve-person jury.”
St. Andrew's Episcopal Day Sch. v. MTC, 806 So. 2d 1105 (Miss. 2002). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 . *1111 ¶ 18. Pursuant to Miss.”
Winters v. City of Columbus, 735 So. 2d 1104 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (Supp.1998). ISSUE 1: Public necessity ¶ 5.”
Lawrence v. Town of Stonewall, 503 So. 2d 260 (Miss. 1987). “On September 5, 1985, the appellants filed a motion to dismiss the town’s petition pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (1972). The circuit judge overruled the appellant’s motion on September 4, 1985.”
Starkville Lodging LLC v. Mississippi Transp. Comm'n (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). “1999) (applying Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 (Rev. 2015)). 6 right of eminent domain.”
Timothy A. Johnson & Carolyn Johnson v. Adams Cnty., Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15 . Section 11-27-15 states in relevant part: Any defendant may, not less than five (5) days prior to the date fixed for the hearing of the complaint and in the same court where the complaint is pending, serve and file a motion to dismiss under the…”
St. Andrews Episcopal Day Sch. v. Mississippi Transp. Comm'n (Miss. 2000). “There are three bases for dismissal of an eminent domain action: (1) plaintiff is not a legal entity entitled to the right of eminent domain; (2) there is no public necessity for the taking of the particular property; and (3) the contemplated use for the property is not a public…”
Diaz v. City of Biloxi, 748 So. 2d 161 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-29 (Supp.1998). Having failed to timely challenge the City's use or perfect their appeal as required by the statutes, the Appellants have waived the right to question the City's use of the property.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.