Miss. Code Ann. » Miss. Code Ann. / Title 23 / Chapter 11
Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-11-1 (2026)

through 23-11-21 - [Repealed]

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

Repealed by Laws, 1986, ch. 495, § 345, eff. 1/1/1987.

Codes, 1942, §§ 3203-101 to 3203-105, 3203-601, 3203-602; Laws, 1972, ch. 490, §§ 101-105, 601, 602.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1999–2000 · leading case: In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “12 was unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitution's Bill of Rights and failed to include a government revenue impact statement as required by section 273(4) of the Mississippi Constitution and Miss.Code Ann. § 23-11-1(3) (Supp.1999). As a result, the circuit…”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “12 was unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights and failed to include a government revenue impact statement as required by section 273(4) of the Mississippi Constitution and Miss.Code Ann. § 23-11-1(3) (Supp.1999). As a result, the circuit…”
Elizabeth Stoner v. Robert Mahoney (Miss. 1999). “12 was unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitution's Bill of Rights and failed to include a government revenue impact statement as required by section 273(4) of the Mississippi Constitution and Miss. Code Ann. § 23-11-1 (3) (Supp. 1999).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 23-11-1(3) — 2 cases
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “12 was unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitution's Bill of Rights and failed to include a government revenue impact statement as required by section 273(4) of the Mississippi Constitution and Miss.Code Ann. § 23-11-1(3) (Supp.1999). As a result, the circuit…”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “12 was unconstitutional because it violated the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights and failed to include a government revenue impact statement as required by section 273(4) of the Mississippi Constitution and Miss.Code Ann. § 23-11-1(3) (Supp.1999). As a result, the circuit…”
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.