Upon the filing of such petition and upon application therefor by the petitioner, the chancellor shall fix a date certain, either in term time or in vacation, when a hearing on said petition will be held, and notice thereof shall be given in the same manner and for the same length of time as is provided in Section 21-1-15 with regard to the creation of municipal corporations, and all parties interested in, affected by, or being aggrieved by said proposed enlargement or contraction shall have the right to appear at such hearing and present their objection to such proposed enlargement or contraction. However, in all cases of the enlargement of municipalities where any of the territory proposed to be incorporated is located within three miles of another existing municipality, then such other existing municipality shall be made a party defendant to said petition and shall be served with process in the manner provided by law, which process shall be served at least thirty days prior to the date set for the hearing.
Codes, 1942, § 3374-12; Laws, 1950, ch. 491, § 12, eff. 7/1/1950.
Notes of Decisions
Harrison Cnty. v. City of Gulfport, 557 So. 2d 780 (Miss. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-31 (1972) authorizes intervention by any party "interested in, affected by or aggrieved by" a proposed annexation.”
In Re Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So. 2d 69 (Miss. 2003).
“The basis for this assertion is the sufficiency of the statutory notice required pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-31. The record reveals that the chancellor was cautious in assuring more than minimum notice to those citizens affected by Hattiesburg's annexation efforts.”
Frisby v. City of Gulfport, 113 So. 3d 565 (Miss. 2013).
“In cases of annexation or enlargement of boundaries, any municipality within three miles “of the territory proposed to be incorporated” in another municipality must be named as a defendant in the petition for inclusion.”
Norwood v. Ext. of Boundaries of Itta Bena, 788 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 2001).
“The statutory requirements for notice of annexation hearings are found in Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-31 (1990), as follows in pertinent part: Upon the filing of such petition and upon application therefor by the petitioner, the chancellor shall fix a date certain, either in term time…”
In Re Boundaries of City of Laurel, 922 So. 2d 791 (Miss. 2006).
“Three opponents to the proposed annexation appeared at the hearing, as was their right under Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-31. In addition to stating their opposition, they answered questions posed by the petitioners and the court.”
Patricia Crosby v. S. Reg'l Corp. (Miss. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, we recognized that a plaintiff’s standing concerning annexation confirmation procedures depended solely on the language contained within the Mississippi Code, and we interpreted Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-31 , which specifically authorizes intervention by any party…”
Lamar Cnty., Mississippi v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi (Miss. 2001).
“The basis for this assertion 43 is the sufficiency of the statutory notice required pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-31 . The record reveals that the chancellor was cautious in assuring more than minimum notice to those citizens affected by Hattiesburg’s annexation efforts.”
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.