Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (2026)
Injunction to restrain or prevent violation
✓ current as of July 2026
Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person is using, has used, or is about to use any method, act or practice prohibited by Section 75-24-5, and that proceedings would be in the public interest, he may bring an action in the name of the state against such person to restrain by temporary or permanent injunction the use of such method, act or practice. The action shall be brought in the chancery or county court of the county in which such person resides or has his principal place of business, or, with consent of the parties, may be brought in the chancery or county court of the county in which the State Capitol is located. The said courts are authorized to issue temporary or permanent injunctions to restrain and prevent violations of this chapter, and such injunctions shall be issued without bond.
Laws, 1974, ch. 555, § 5; Laws, 1994, ch. 537, § 3, eff. 3/29/1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Purdue Pharma L.P. v. State of Mississippi, 256 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2018).
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. State of Mississippi, 256 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2018). “" Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (Rev. 2016). Defendants contend that because no defendant resides or has its principal place of business in Hinds County and because no defendant consented to venue in Hinds County, venue in Hinds County is not proper.”
Jim Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et a, 737 F.3d 78 (5th Cir. 2013). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-9; § 75 — 24—19(l)(b).”
In re Stand. & Poor's Rating Agency Litig., 23 F. Supp. 3d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (granting the state attorney general exclusive authority to seek injunctive relief with respect to deceptive practices prohibited by the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act); Miss.”
California v. Infineon Tech. AG, 531 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “As a practical matter, this is correct; the state consumer protection law allows for Attorney General actions only where the Attorney General is seeking injunctive relief “in the name of the State,” while the state antitrust statute appears to limit Attorney General actions…”
State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012). “The MCPA gives the State authority to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, see Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-24-9; 75-24-19(l)(b), and may indeed be interpreted as giving the State authority to seek restitution for its own injury, see Miss.”
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 876 F. Supp. 2d 758 (S.D. Miss. 2012). “Miss.Code § 75-24-9. The next section confirms that in those suits, “[t]he court may make such additional orders or judgments, including restitution, as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any monies or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired…”
Hood v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 958 F. Supp. 2d 681 (S.D. Miss. 2013). “any method, act or practice prohibited by Section 75-24-5, and that proceedings would be in the public interest, he may bring an action in the name of the state against such person to restrain by temporary or permanent injunction the use of such method, act or practice .”
Navient Corp. & Navient Solutions, LLC v. The State of Mississippi ex rel. Lynn Fitch, Attorney Gen. (Miss. 2021). “(quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (Rev. 2016)). ¶32.”
State of Mississippi v. Walgreen Co., 250 So. 3d 465 (2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (Rev. 2016) (emphasis added).”
State v. Yazaki North Am., Inc., Leoni Wiring Sys., Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc., G.S.W. Mfg., Inc., G.S. Wiring Sys., Inc., Denso Int'l Am., Inc., & Am. Furukawa, Inc. (Miss. 2020). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (Rev. 2016). Section 75- 24-5(1) makes clear that “[a]ction may be brought under Section 75-24-5(1) only under the provision of Section 75-24-9.”
Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Fitch (S.D. Miss. 2024). “728 § 5, which provides for both civil and criminal penalties and is enforced by Mississippi’s Attorney General, see Miss Code Ann. §§ 75-24-9 (covering injunctive relief), 75-24-19 (covering civil penalties for violations of injunctions issued under § 75-24-9, and for knowing…”
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-9 (Rev. 2016) (emphasis added).”
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.