Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (2026)
Resolution of claim by patron; judicial review; taking of additional evidence; standard of review; grounds for reversal of decision of commission
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) The reviewing court may, upon motion therefor, order that additional evidence in the case be taken by the commission upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem just and proper. The motion must not be granted except upon a showing that the additional evidence is material and necessary and that sufficient reason existed for failure to present the evidence at the hearing before the hearing examiner or the commission. The motion must be supported by an affidavit of the moving party or his counsel showing with particularity the materiality and necessity of the additional evidence and the reason why it was not introduced in the administrative hearing. Rebuttal evidence to the additional evidence must be permitted. In cases in which additional evidence is presented to the commission, the commission may modify its decisions and orders as the additional evidence may warrant and shall file with the reviewing court a transcript of the additional evidence together with any modifications of the decision and order, all of which become a part of the record on review.
- (2) The review must be conducted by the court sitting without a jury and must not be a trial de novo but is confined to the record on review.
- (3) The reviewing court may affirm the decision and order of the commission, or it may remand the case for further proceedings or reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision is:
- (a) In violation of constitutional provisions;
- (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the commission;
- (c) Made upon unlawful procedure;
- (d) Unsupported by any evidence; or
- (e) Arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.
Laws, 1990 Ex Sess, ch. 45, § 87, eff. 6/29/1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1998–2011 · leading case: Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999).
Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999). “Additionally, the Court must adhere to its deferential standard of review of the findings of an administrative agency which the Legislature codified in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171. See Casino Magic Corp.”
Grand Casino Biloxi v. Hallmark, 823 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2002). “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3), a reviewing court may reverse a decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission when the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced due to a "violation of constitutional provisions.”
Pickle v. IGT, 830 So. 2d 1214 (Miss. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) (emphasis added).”
Eash v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC, 4 So. 3d 1042 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171; see also Miss.”
Thomas v. Isle of Capri Casino & Cds, 781 So. 2d 125 (Miss. 2001). “The standard of review for this casino patron dispute is governed by the Mississippi Gaming Control Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (3)(d) (2000), which states that an order of the Gaming Commission may be reversed "if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been…”
IGT v. Kelly, 778 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001). “Accordingly, this Court must adhere to its "deferential standard of review" of the findings of an administrative agency as codified in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (1991). Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v.”
Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindler, 772 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 2000). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3), a court reviewing a decision of the Gaming Commission may "reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision is: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; (b) In excess of the…”
Florida Eash v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi (Miss. 2007). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (2) (Rev. 2000).”
Grand Casino Biloxi v. David Hallmark (Miss. 2000). “Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (3), a reviewing court may reverse a decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission when the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced due to a "violation of constitutional provisions.”
Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v. Effie Freeman (Miss. 1998). “Additionally, the Court must adhere to its deferential standard of review of the findings of an administrative agency which the Legislature codified in Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 . See Casino Magic Corp.”
IGT v. Nancy Kelly (Miss. 1998). “Accordingly, this Court must adhere to its "deferential standard of review" of the findings of an administrative agency as codified in Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171 (1991). Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v.”
Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v. Simon, 25 So. 3d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) [(Rev. 2000) ] (emphasis added).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171(2) — 2 cases
Eash v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC, 4 So. 3d 1042 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171; see also Miss.”
Payton v. Boomtown Casino, 61 So. 3d 969 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) — 7 cases
Pickle v. IGT, 830 So. 2d 1214 (Miss. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) (emphasis added).”
Grand Casino Biloxi v. Hallmark, 823 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2002). “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3), a reviewing court may reverse a decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission when the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced due to a "violation of constitutional provisions.”
Eash v. Imperial Palace of Mississippi, LLC, 4 So. 3d 1042 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171; see also Miss.”
Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999). “Additionally, the Court must adhere to its deferential standard of review of the findings of an administrative agency which the Legislature codified in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171. See Casino Magic Corp.”
Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindler, 772 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 2000). “Under Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3), a court reviewing a decision of the Gaming Commission may "reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision is: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; (b) In excess of the…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3)(a) — 2 cases
Mississippi Gaming Com'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999). “Additionally, the Court must adhere to its deferential standard of review of the findings of an administrative agency which the Legislature codified in Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171. See Casino Magic Corp.”
Grand Casino Biloxi v. Hallmark, 823 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2002). “Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3), a reviewing court may reverse a decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission when the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced due to a "violation of constitutional provisions.”
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.