Miss. Code Ann. » Miss. Code Ann. / Title 23 / Chapter 15
Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (2026)

Appeal from judgment; restrictions upon review of findings of fact

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

The contestant or contestee, or both, may file an appeal in the Supreme Court within the time and under such conditions and procedures as are established by the Supreme Court for other appeals. If the findings of fact have been concurred in by all the commissioners in attendance, provided as many as three (3) commissioners are and have been in attendance, the facts shall not be subject to appellate review. But if not so many as three (3) of the commissioners are or have been in attendance, or if one or more commissioners dissent, upon review, the Supreme Court may make such findings as the evidence requires.

Derived from 1972 Code § 23-3-51 [Codes, 1942, § 3185; Laws, 1935, ch. 19; Laws, 1968, ch. 567, § 3; repealed by Laws, 1986, ch. 495, § 333]; Laws, 1986, ch. 495, § 286, eff. 1/1/1987; Laws, 1991, ch. 573, § 108, eff. 7/1/1991.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: Barbour v. Gunn, 890 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barbour v. Gunn, 890 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Rev.2001) ("If the findings of fact have been concurred in by all the commissioners in attendance, provided as many as three (3) commissioners are and have been in attendance, the facts shall not be subject to appellate review.”
Rizzo v. Bizzell, 530 So. 2d 121 (Miss. 1988). · cites it 3× “In this Court, Rizzo submitted a bill of exceptions rather than seeking to submit a transcript as allowed under Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp. 1987).”
Pegram v. Bailey, 708 So. 2d 1307 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “Hall's absentee ballot was detailed in a formal dissent filed in the court below under the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 . The dissent was detailed and specific as to the reasons drawn from the evidence which supported the Election Commission's conclusion that the…”
Campbell v. Whittington, 733 So. 2d 820 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 3× “Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp.1998) (contestant and/or contestee may file an appeal within the time established by the Supreme Court for other appeals).”
Waters v. Gnemi, 907 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 2005). “" Further, Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 provides, inter alia, that if as many as three of the five county election commissioners are in attendance at the hearing before the special tribunal, and if the findings of fact by the special tribunal are concurred in by all the county…”
Pearson v. Parsons, 541 So. 2d 447 (Miss. 1989). “DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISQUALIFYING TEN (10) VOTES AND IN ALLOWING THREE (3) OTHER VOTES TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT COUNT? THE CONTESTED BALLOTS Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp. 1988) states in pertinent part: If the findings of fact have been concurred in by all the…”
Rogers v. Holder, 636 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1994). “Holder claims Rogers is precluded from this assertion on appeal by virtue of Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp. 1992), as all commissioners concurred in the Tribunal's findings.”
McDaniel v. Beane, 515 So. 2d 949 (Miss. 1987). “" McDaniel reasons that if the draftsmen of Section 23-15-927 had intended to require that the attorneys certifying to the petition for judicial review be "disinterested" they could well have employed the same language as appeared in Section 23-15-933.”
Jackson v. Bell, 123 So. 3d 436 (Miss. 2013). “Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Rev.2007) (ed.”
Wade v. Williams, 517 So. 2d 573 (Miss. 1987). “While it may be true that this Court is in as good a position as the Special Tribunal to determine intent from examination of the contested ballots, Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-933 (Supp. 1987) imposes factual this inquiry upon the Special Tribunal.”
Jefferson Davis Cnty. Democratic Exec. Comm. v. Davies, 912 So. 2d 837 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 says that when at least three commissioners attend the trial and all concur with the judge's findings of fact, the facts are not subject to appellate review.”
Jefferson Davis Cty. Demo. Exicutive Comm. v. Davies, 912 So. 2d 837 (Miss. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-933 says that when at least three commissioners attend the trial and all concur with the judge's findings of fact, the facts are not subject to appellate review.”
Show all 18 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.