Miss. Code Ann. » Miss. Code Ann. / Title 93 / Chapter 25
Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This chapter may be cited as the "Uniform Interstate Family Support Act."

Added by Laws, 2015, ch. 367, SB 2301, 1, eff. 7/1/2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2002–2017 · leading case: Nelson v. Halley, 827 So. 2d 42 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nelson v. Halley, 827 So. 2d 42 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (Supp.2001). Again, the purpose is to designate one state and one state only as the jurisdiction to consider modification.”
Evans v. Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs., 36 So. 3d 463 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (Rev.2004). MDHS claimed the agreed order was void as a matter of law; therefore, Evans still owed $800 per month pursuant to the valid Louisiana order.”
John K. Hamilton v. Kidron S. Wise Young, 213 So. 3d 69 (Miss. 2017). · cites it 3× “2d at 49 -50 (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (l)(b) (Supp.”
Patterson v. Patterson, 20 So. 3d 65 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (emphasis added).”
Bradley Kabat Nurkin v. Eva Caroline Parkman Nurkin, 171 So. 3d 561 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101(l)(a) (Rev.2013).”
Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ben Porter, 237 So. 3d 799 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 93-25-101 to -903 (Supp.”
Grumme v. Grumme, 871 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 2× “In fact, the trial court stated that based on the intent of the UIFSA statutes it would not be able to reach the same conclusion except for the consent aspect of Halley and Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101. 2 ¶ 5. On appeal, the sole issue presented to this Court for review is whether…”
Claire Louise Grumme v. Darren W. Grumme (Miss. 2003). “After the foreign order has been registered in this state, the tribunal of this state may modify that order pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101 if the provisions of Miss.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101(1)(b) — 1 case
Nelson v. Halley, 827 So. 2d 42 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (Supp.2001). Again, the purpose is to designate one state and one state only as the jurisdiction to consider modification.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101(l)(a) — 1 case
Bradley Kabat Nurkin v. Eva Caroline Parkman Nurkin, 171 So. 3d 561 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101(l)(a) (Rev.2013).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101(l)(a)(i) — 1 case
Evans v. Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs., 36 So. 3d 463 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (Rev.2004). MDHS claimed the agreed order was void as a matter of law; therefore, Evans still owed $800 per month pursuant to the valid Louisiana order.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-101(l)(b) — 1 case
Evans v. Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs., 36 So. 3d 463 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-101 (Rev.2004). MDHS claimed the agreed order was void as a matter of law; therefore, Evans still owed $800 per month pursuant to the valid Louisiana order.”
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.