Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (2026)
and 11-7-215 - [Repealed]
✓ current as of July 2026
Repealed by Laws, 1991, ch. 573, § 141, eff. 7/1/1991.
§ 11-7-213. [Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 61, art. 1 (73); 1857, ch. 61, art. 165; 1871, § 647; 1880, § 1719; 1892, § 738; 1906, § 800; Hemingway's 1917, § 588; 1930, § 592; 1942, § 1536; Laws 1956, ch. 230] § 11-7-215. [Codes, 1857, ch. 61, art. 168; 1871, § 648; 1880, § 1720; 1892, § 739; 1906, § 801; Hemingway's 1917, § 589; 1930, § 593; 1942, § 1537]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1975–2007 · leading case: Stewart v. Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 192 (Miss. 2002).
Stewart v. Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co., 846 So. 2d 192 (Miss. 2002). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (Supp.2001). A plaintiff must either reject the remittitur and have a new trial on damages or accept the remittitur.”
McDaniel v. Ritter, 556 So. 2d 303 (Miss. 1989). “And, except for an order directing a new trial on damages alone, in which instance an appeal is specifically authorized by statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 , we have never permitted an appeal from an order granting a motion for a new trial.”
City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson, 562 So. 2d 1212 (Miss. 1990). “As to an interlocutory appeal from circuit court, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (1972) authorizes such an appeal by either party from an order granting a new trial on either the excessiveness or the inadequacy of damages.”
Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc., 947 So. 2d 900 (Miss. 2007). “The repealed statute, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-213, provided, inter alia, that when a motion for a new trial raised only the issue of whether the awarded damages were excessive or inadequate, "the party aggrieved may elect to appeal from the order granting a new trial.”
Beckwith v. State, 615 So. 2d 1134 (Miss. 1992). “Except as authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 , [5] a statute authorizing an appeal by either party from an order granting a new trial on damages, no interlocutory appeal was ever granted from a circuit court order.”
Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So. 2d 652 (Miss. 1975). “[ Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (1972)]. This necessitates a different result when a motion for a directed verdict, a peremptory instruction or a motion for a judgment n.”
Kilgore v. Barnes, 490 So. 2d 895 (Miss. 1986). “1977); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (1972). Interlocutory appeals from chancery court, on the other hand, are governed by statute.”
James v. Jackson, 514 So. 2d 1224 (Miss. 1987). “James declined to accept the additur and elected to appeal from the order granting a new trial as authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 (1972). Thereto Mrs.”
Gee v. Hawkins, 402 So. 2d 825 (Miss. 1981). “is sustained from that of a motion for a new trial because the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence. The former denies a new trial.”
Clark v. Viniard by & Through Viniard, 548 So. 2d 987 (Miss. 1989). “§§ 11-7-213 and 11-1-55 are statutory expressions in regard to a motion for new trial concerning excessiveness or inadequacy of damages, additur or remittitur, but those sections are not here applicable because of the finding of the trial court.”
Carol D. Stewart v. Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co., No. 2000-CA-01511-SCT (Miss. May 12, 2000). “.; or he could accept the remittitur.") (emphasis added).”
Marilyn C. Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc., No. 2003-CT-02408-SCT (Miss. Sept. 30, 2003). “The repealed statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-213 , provided, inter alia, that when a motion for a new trial raised only the issue of whether the awarded damages were excessive or inadequate, “the party aggrieved may elect to appeal from the order granting a new trial.”
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.