Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (2026)

Penalties

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

Codes, 1942, § 7106-127; Laws, 1966, ch. 258, § 17; Laws, 1972, ch. 505, § 14; Laws, 1973, ch. 402, § 1; Laws, 1977, ch. 327, § 10; Laws, 1981, ch. 528, § 18; Laws, 1988, ch. 311, § 4; Laws, 1991, ch. 334, § 2; Laws, 1995, ch. 627, § 6; Laws, 2003, ch. 301, § 2, eff. 1/20/2003.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Gulf Park Water Co. v. First Ocean Springs Dev. Co., 530 So. 2d 1325 (Miss. 1988).
Gulf Park Water Co. v. First Ocean Springs Dev. Co., 530 So. 2d 1325 (Miss. 1988). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (Supp. 1987). B.”
Midsouth Rail Corp. v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 697 So. 2d 451 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “The trial court also found that the bank was not the owner of the site or an operator of the business and, therefore, it was not liable for clean-up costs under Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (d). ¶ 4. The trial court did rule for MidSouth under Count 3 of its counterclaim finding…”
Hindt v. State, 421 A.2d 1325 (Del. 1980). “(2) (West 1977); Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (Supp.1979); Mo.”
Barrett Refining Corp. v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 751 So. 2d 1104 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 49-17-43(a) (Rev.1995) mandates a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, and “[e]ach day upon which a violation occurs shall be deemed a separate and additional violation.”
Gray v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 174 So. 3d 956 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (7). ¶ 12. Gray appealed the Commission’s decision to the Rankin County Chancery Court, which affirmed.”
Walter Cooley & Tammy Cooley v. Pine Belt Oil Co., Inc. (Miss. 2022). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (4) (Rev. 2012).”
MidSouth Rail Corp v. Citizens Bk & Tr Co Inc (Miss. 1994). · cites it 2× “The trial court also found that the bank was not the owner of the site or an operator of the business and, therefore, it was not liable for clean-up costs under Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (d). ¶4. The trial court did rule for MidSouth under Count 3 of its counterclaim finding…”
Titan Tire of Natchez, Inc. v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality (Miss. 2003). “Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 also provides factors for the Commission to consider when determining whether a company should be fined.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43(1) — 1 case
Gray v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 174 So. 3d 956 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (7). ¶ 12. Gray appealed the Commission’s decision to the Rankin County Chancery Court, which affirmed.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43(7)(a) — 1 case
Gray v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 174 So. 3d 956 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (7). ¶ 12. Gray appealed the Commission’s decision to the Rankin County Chancery Court, which affirmed.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43(7)(b) — 1 case
Gray v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 174 So. 3d 956 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43 (7). ¶ 12. Gray appealed the Commission’s decision to the Rankin County Chancery Court, which affirmed.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43(a) — 1 case
Barrett Refining Corp. v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 751 So. 2d 1104 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 49-17-43(a) (Rev.1995) mandates a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, and “[e]ach day upon which a violation occurs shall be deemed a separate and additional violation.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 49-17-43(g) — 1 case
Barrett Refining Corp. v. Mississippi Comm'n on Env't Quality, 751 So. 2d 1104 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 49-17-43(a) (Rev.1995) mandates a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each violation of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law, and “[e]ach day upon which a violation occurs shall be deemed a separate and additional violation.”
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.