Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (2026)

Hearing on petition; decree

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the chancellor finds from the evidence presented at the hearing that the proposed enlargement or contraction is reasonable and is required by the public convenience and necessity and, in the event of an enlargement of a municipality, that reasonable public and municipal services will be rendered in the annexed territory within a reasonable time and that the governing authority of the municipality complied with the provisions of Section 21-1-27, the chancellor shall enter a decree approving, ratifying and confirming the proposed enlargement or contraction, and describing the boundaries of the municipality as altered. In so doing the chancellor shall have the right and the power to modify the proposed enlargement or contraction by decreasing the territory to be included in or excluded from the municipality, as the case may be.

(2) If the chancellor shall find from the evidence that the proposed enlargement or contraction, as the case may be, is unreasonable and is not required by the public convenience and necessity, or in the event of an enlargement of a municipality, that the governing authority of the municipality failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21-1-27, then he shall enter a decree denying the enlargement or contraction.

(3) In any event, the decree of the chancellor shall become effective after the passage of ten (10) days from the date thereof or, in the event an appeal is taken therefrom, within ten (10) days from the final determination of the appeal. In any proceeding under this section the burden shall be upon the municipal authorities to show that the proposed enlargement or contraction is reasonable.

Codes, 1942, § 3374-13; Laws, 1950, ch. 491, § 13, eff. 7/1/1950.

Amended by Laws, 2016, ch. 443, SB 2198, 2, eff. 7/1/2016.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: In Re Enlargement & Extension of Boundaries of City of MacOn, 854 So. 2d 1029 (Miss. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Enlargement & Extension of Boundaries of City of MacOn, 854 So. 2d 1029 (Miss. 2003). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33, the City had the burden of proving that the proposed annexation was reasonable.”

Matter of Extension of Boundaries of Columbus, 644 So. 2d 1168 (Miss. 1994). · cites it 2× “Partial approval is specifically authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972). The remaining objectors filed an appeal asserting that the Chancellor erred in granting even a portion of the proposed annexation.”

McElhaney v. City of Horn Lake, 501 So. 2d 401 (Miss. 1987). · cites it 2× “1978); Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972). As a reviewing Court, our duty is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor's finding on this question is manifestly wrong.”

Mun. Boundaries of City v. Madison, 650 So. 2d 490 (Miss. 1995). · cites it 2× “1989); Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972). The role of the judiciary in annexations is limited to one question: whether the annexation is reasonable.”

In Re Enlargement & Ext. of Mun. Boundaries of City of D'Iberville, 867 So. 2d 241 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33. This Court has determined reasonableness by utilizing the following twelve indicia: (1) the municipality's need for expansion; (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city; (3) the potential health hazards…”

In Re Mun. Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So. 2d 270 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “That question is presented first to the chancery court, Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1990), and invokes the interests both of the municipality seeking annexation, the owners of property and other inhabitants of the area sought to be annexed, and, as well, others who may be affected.”

Enlarging, Extending & Defining the Corp. Limits & Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi, 109 So. 3d 529 (Miss. 2013). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (Rev.2007). II. Jurisdiction ¶ 7.”

Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So. 2d 918 (Miss. 1989). “Accordingly, a preliminary word is in order regarding, first, the scope of judicial review of an annexation ordinance and, second, the scope of appellate review of a Chancery Court's finding of reasonableness.”

Matter of Boundaries of City of Jackson, 551 So. 2d 861 (Miss. 1989). “That question is presented first to the Chancery Court, Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972), and invokes the interests both of the municipality seeking annexation, the owners of property and other inhabitants of the area sought to be annexed, and, as well, others who may be…”

Matter of Contraction & Deannexation of Grenada, 876 So. 2d 995 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 2× “The City argues that the court's judgment on deannexation was automatically stayed by Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (2001) when it filed its notice of appeal on August 30, 2002.”

In Re Mun. Boundaries of City of Southaven, 864 So. 2d 912 (Miss. 2003). “Because Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 requires a chancellor to find that "reasonable public and municipal services will be rendered in the annexed territory within a reasonable time" before approving annexation, and because Southaven failed to present any plan for the implementation…”

In Re Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland, 651 So. 2d 548 (Miss. 1995). “Such partial approval is specifically authorized under Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (1972). Jackson perfected its appeal to this Court on August 6, 1992, again primarily relying on Matter of Boundaries of City of Jackson , arguing that the chancellor should have undertaken a…”

Show all 51 citing cases →

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.