Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (2026)

Suits by and against municipalities

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A municipality may sue and be sued by its corporate name. Suits against any municipality shall be instituted in the county in which such municipality is situated, where such actions are brought in the circuit or chancery or county courts, and where such municipality is wholly situated in one (1) county. In a case where a county has two (2) judicial districts, such suits shall be brought in the judicial district in which the municipality or its principal office is located. In cases where a municipality is located in two (2) counties, such suits shall be brought in the county in which the principal office of the municipality is located. As to justice court actions, the same shall be brought in the county in which the municipality or its principal office is located.

Codes, 1892, § 2912; 1906, § 3300; Hemingway's 1917, § 5796; 1930, § 2370; 1942, § 3374-02; Laws, 1938, ch. 335; Laws, 1950, ch. 491, § 2; Laws, 1981, ch. 471, § 39; Laws, 1982, ch. 423, § 28, made eff. 1/1/1984, or, with respect to a given county, from and after such earlier date as the county appoints a justice court clerk pursuant to § 9-11-27(3).


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1974–2013 · leading case: Est. of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1998).
Est. of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1998). · cites it 6× “First they contend that under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-45-25 (governing venue in actions against municipalities), 11-45-17 (governing venue in actions against counties), and 11-46-13(2) (governing venue in tort actions against political subdivisions), venue is only proper against…”
Frisby v. City of Gulfport, 113 So. 3d 565 (Miss. 2013). · cites it 2× “2007) (“[e]very municipality of this state shall be a municipal corporation and shall have power to sue and be sued”). Municipal corporations that have at least 2,000 inhabitants are classified as cities.”
Quinn v. Est. of Jones, 818 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 2× “Likewise, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (Supp. 2001) provides that a suit against a municipality shall be instituted in the county in which such municipality is situated.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Moss, 873 So. 2d 76 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 6× “The City and USF & G moved for a transfer of venue pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (Rev.2002), suits by and against municipalities, and 11-11-7 (1972) (repealed effective January 1, 2003), actions against insurance companies.”
Benedict v. City of Hattiesburg, 693 So. 2d 377 (Miss. 1997). “The chancellor found that the case was filed in the wrong venue in lieu of § 11-45-25. [2] However, rather than dismissing upon this basis as Hattiesburg and CBL petitioned, the chancellor transferred the case pursuant to M.”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Richard K. Moss (Miss. 2002). · cites it 7× “The City and USF&G moved for a transfer of venue pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (Rev. 2002), suits by and against municipalities, and 11-11-7 (1972) (repealed effective January 1, 2003), actions against insurance companies.”
Walter Tucker v. Esther Jones Quinn (Miss. 1996). · cites it 6× “First they contend that under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-45-25 (governing venue in actions against municipalities), 11-45-17 (governing venue in actions against counties), and 11-46-13(2) (governing venue in tort actions against political subdivisions), venue is only proper against…”
Minshew v. Smith, 380 F. Supp. 918 (N.D. Miss. 1974). · cites it 2× “See Section 11-45-25, Mississippi Code of 1972.”
Esther Jones Quinn v. Doyle King (Miss. 2000). · cites it 2× “Likewise, Miss. Code Ann. §11-45-25 (Supp. 2001) provides that a suit against a municipality shall be instituted in the county in which such municipality is situated.”
Douglas E. Benedict, Sr. v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi (Miss. 1993). “The chancellor found that the case was filed in the wrong venue in lieu of § 11-45-25.(2) However, rather than dismissing upon this basis as Hattiesburg and CBL petitioned, the chancellor transferred the case pursuant to M.”
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.