Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (2026)

Jurisdiction; appeals; venue

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

Laws, 1984, ch. 495, § 8; reenacted without change, Laws, 1985, ch. 474, § 7; Laws, 1987, ch. 483, § 7; Laws, 1992, ch. 491 § 1; Laws, 1993, ch. 476, § 10, eff. 4/1/1993.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So. 2d 997 (Miss. 2004).
Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So. 2d 997 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 12× “Hospitals and physicians protected by the MTCA enjoy their own unique venue statute provided for in Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2). The defendants argue that under Miss.”
Boston v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 822 So. 2d 239 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 22× “HAIC counters by stating that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13 applies because a political subdivision is being sued and because it was the statute in effect at the time this suit was filed in state court.”
Est. of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1998). · cites it 18× “This position is further supported by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (2), which provides that proper venue for a tort suit against any government entity, including a county or municipality, is "in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the…”
Ernest T. Jones v. Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, 264 So. 3d 9 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (1) (Rev. 2012).”
Delta Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Taylor, 112 So. 3d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1). DRMC is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi, and thus is entitled to the limitations, protections, and immunities of the MTCA; therefore, this case was tried without a jury.”
Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Dist., 865 So. 2d 357 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 5× “For the first time on appeal, Cockrell argues Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (Rev.2002), which states that all MTCA claims are to be determined without a jury, is unconstitutional.”
Donaldson v. Covington Cnty., 846 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13. See also Simpson v.”
Lang v. Bay St. Louis/Waveland Sch. Dist., 764 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 4× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (1) (Supp.1998).”
Mississippi Crime Lab'y v. Douglas, 70 So. 3d 196 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 8× “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”
Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 968 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 2007). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1) (Rev.2002). [8] It is noteworthy that the issue before the federal court was not the liability of Luster or Epps, but rather whether Epps's insurance policy required the insurance company to provide Epps a defense to the suit.”
Mississippi Dept. of Pub. Saf. v. Durn, 861 So. 2d 990 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (Rev.2002). The circuit court has the sole authority for determining the credibility of witnesses when it sits as the trier of fact.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1) — 45 cases
Delta Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Taylor, 112 So. 3d 11 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1). DRMC is a political subdivision of the State of Mississippi, and thus is entitled to the limitations, protections, and immunities of the MTCA; therefore, this case was tried without a jury.”
Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 968 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 2007). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1) (Rev.2002). [8] It is noteworthy that the issue before the federal court was not the liability of Luster or Epps, but rather whether Epps's insurance policy required the insurance company to provide Epps a defense to the suit.”
Lawrence Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Brister, 823 So. 2d 459 (Miss. 2001).
Brewer v. Burdette, 768 So. 2d 920 (Miss. 2000).
Univ. of S. Miss. v. Williams, 891 So. 2d 160 (Miss. 2004).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) — 16 cases
Wayne Gen. Hosp. v. Hayes, 868 So. 2d 997 (Miss. 2004). “Hospitals and physicians protected by the MTCA enjoy their own unique venue statute provided for in Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2). The defendants argue that under Miss.”
Boston v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 822 So. 2d 239 (Miss. 2002). “HAIC counters by stating that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13 applies because a political subdivision is being sued and because it was the statute in effect at the time this suit was filed in state court.”
Est. of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1998). “This position is further supported by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (2), which provides that proper venue for a tort suit against any government entity, including a county or municipality, is "in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the…”
Mississippi Crime Lab'y v. Douglas, 70 So. 3d 196 (Miss. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(2) (Rev.2002) (emphasis added).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-13(3) — 1 case
Conrod v. Holder, 825 So. 2d 16 (Miss. 2002).
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.