Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-1 (2026)
When the state may be sued
✓ current as of July 2026
Any person having a claim against the State of Mississippi, after demand made of the auditor of public accounts therefor, and his refusal to issue a warrant on the treasurer in payment of such claim, may, where it is not otherwise provided, bring suit therefor against the state, in the court having jurisdiction of the subject matter which holds its sessions at the seat of government; and, if there be no such court at the seat of government, such suit may be instituted in such court in the county in which the seat of government may be.
Codes, 1871, § 1573; 1880, § 2641; 1892, § 4248; 1906, § 4800; Hemingway's 1917, § 3164; 1930, § 5997; 1942, § 4387.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Mississippi State Port Auth. v. S. Indus. Contractors, LLC, 271 So. 3d 742 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).
Mississippi State Port Auth. v. S. Indus. Contractors, LLC, 271 So. 3d 742 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-1 (emphasis added).”
Moore v. Bell Chevrolet-pontiac-buick-gmc, 864 So. 2d 939 (Miss. 2004). “2002) provides that: Any person having a claim against the State of Mississippi, after demand made of the auditor of public accounts therefor, and his refusal to issue a warrant on the treasurer in payment of such claim, may, where it is not otherwise provided, bring suit…”
Alexander v. Taylor, 928 So. 2d 992 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-1 (Rev.2002) (suits for money claims that are subject to audit by the State Auditor).”
Grant v. State, 686 So. 2d 1078 (Miss. 1996). “The bondholders claim that from the date of maturity of these bonds until 1871, actions against the State of Mississippi were not authorized. In 1871, a statute was enacted authorizing suits against the State, but only after demand had been made of the Auditor of Public Accounts.”
McKay v. Boyd Const. Co., Inc., 571 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1990). “Subsequently, this case was transferred to the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District based on jurisdictional venue requirements of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-1 (1972), which requires that suits against the state be brought in the court which holds its sessions at the…”
One (1) Charter Arms v. State, 721 So. 2d 620 (Miss. 1998). “Code Ann. § 13-5-93 (1972); and Miss. R. Civ.”
Mississippi State Bldg. v. S & S Moving, 475 So. 2d 159 (Miss. 1985). “That the court did not grant the Commission a directed verdict due to plaintiff's failure to follow the remedy prescribed in Mississippi Code Annotated, § 11-45-1 (1972), which requires that demand be first made of the State Auditor before suit can be filed.”
Rankin Cnty., Mississippi v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, L.P. & Gulf South Pipeline Co., LLC (Miss. 2023). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-1 (Rev. 2019). But clearly none of the statutory prerequisites applies to trigger this statute.”
Mike Moore v. Bell Chevrolet-Pontiac-Buick-GMC, LLC (Miss. 2002). “2002) provides that: Any person having a claim against the State of Mississippi, after demand made of the auditor of public accounts therefor, and his refusal to issue a warrant on the treasurer in payment of such claim, may, where it is not otherwise provided, bring suit…”
Charles Baring Travers Grant v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 1993). “§ 1573, Code of 1871; Miss. Code Ann § 11-45-1 (1972). According to the bondholders, demand against the Auditor of Public Accounts was a condition precedent before the statute of limitations could begin to run.”
Charter Arms v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 1993). “38, 48(a). The defendant should also have full access to discovery tools, such as depositions and interrogatories, so the defendant may properly tender a case.”
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.