Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (2026)

and 11-53-29 - [Repealed]

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

Repealed by Laws of 1991, ch. 573, § 141, eff. 7/1/1991.

§ 11-53-27. [Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 61, art. 1 (74); 1857, ch. 61, art. 255; 1880, § 2375; 1892, § 875; 1906, § 952; Hemingway's 1917, § 661; 1930, § 668; 1942, § 1579] § 11-53-29. [Codes, 1892, § 876; 1906, § 953; Hemingway's 1917, § 662; 1930, § 669; 1942, § 1580]


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2012 · leading case: Denson v. George, 642 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994).
Denson v. George, 642 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994). · cites it 2× “§§ 11-53-27 and 11-53-35 (1972), which were in effect at the time of the trial and which provided for the payment of "costs" by an unsuccessful plaintiff, are statutory authority for the imposition of attorney's fees against Denson.”
Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Mississippi Wildlife Enf't Officers' Ass'n, 740 So. 2d 925 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo, 94 So. 3d 256 (Miss. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 631 So. 2d 789 (Miss. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
Hubbard v. Delta Sanitation of Mississippi, 64 So. 3d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
Ms Dept. of Wildlife v. Wildlife Enf. Off., 740 So. 2d 925 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Wildlife Enf't Officers' Ass'n, Inc. (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-27 (1972) (successful party to recover costs, generally).”
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.