I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - S A- 0 1 1 0 5 - S CT CITY OF J AC KS ON, M

I S S I S S I P P I AN D J AC KS ON W A T ER P A R T N ER S H IP
v. UNI TED W

ATER S ERVICES

, I NC. AND UN

I TED W ATER SERV

ICES OFM

I SS I SS I PPI , LLC D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 09/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: PI ETER J OH N TEEU W I SS EN J AM ES A. P EDE N, J R. LAR A E. GI LL DALE DANKS, J R. ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : ROBER T L
. GI BBS KATI E L OFT ON W ALL ACE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 18/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A ggr i eved by the J acks on C i ty C ounci l ’ s deci s i on t o aw ard a con t r actt o J acks on W at erP artner s hi p (“ J W P”) , U ni t ed W at erSer vi ces and i t s af f i l i at e, U ni t ed W at erSer vi ces of M i s s i s s i ppi , L L C ( col l ect i vel y “ U W S”) , a ppeal ed the C i ty Counci l ’ s de ci s i on, pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 51- 75 ( R ev. 2002) , i n the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. JW P filed a m o tio n to in ter v e n e , w h ich th e c irc u it

### Th ese figures were a “5 y ear Fix ed F ee To tal (assume 3 % p er Year).” C ontrary to 1 

### the d issent’s assertio n th at, “[c]ommonsen se d ictates th at th e C ity merelyhas aninterest in awarding thecontra ct

to t he l owes t and bes t bi dder [, ] ” the City Counci l a ct ual ly awarded the contract to th e hig hest b idd er, a bidmore than$2 milliongreater th an th at of U WS . (Diss. Op. at ¶ 38). 2 courtdeni ed. J W P and the C i ty of J acks on ( “C i ty”) t i m el y pe r f ect ed thi s a ppeal of

the or der d e n y i n g J W P ’ s mo t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e . W e a f f i r m. FACTS ¶2. I n M ar ch 2008, the C i ty i s s ued a R eques t f or Pr opos al s ( “R FP”) for t he O per at i on, M ai nt e na nc e a nd M a na ge mentof the W a s t e w a t e rFa c i l i t i e s . V a r i ou s ve nd or s , i nc l udi ng U W S a n d JW P , su b m itt e d p ro p o sa ls o n o r a b o u t M a y 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 . A n “ E v a lu a tio n o f P ro p o sa ls f orthe O per at i on, M ai nt enanc e and M anagementof W as t ew at erF aci l i t i es ” pr epar ed by the C i ty’ s D epart m entof

Publ i c W or ks r evea l ed a “pr i ci ng compar i s on” of the thr ee s ubm i t t ed bids, as fol l ow s: So uthw estW at er C om pan y – $3 , 01 9, 17 0. 31 ; U W S – $ 2, 61 5, 99 6. 05 ; JW P – $4, 689, 018. 13. Fol l ow i ng mul t i pl e s peci al meet i ngs r ef l ect ed i n the bi l l of

exce pt i ons , t he 1 J acks on C i ty C ounci l , by a f our - t o- one vot e, aw ar ded t he contr actt o J W P on N ovember10, 2008. ¶3
. A g g ri ev ed b y this de c isio n , U W S file d a n o tice o f a p p e a l w ith the c ir cu it co u rt pur s uantt o Sect i on 11- 51- 75. U W S cl ai m ed thatthe C i ty, i n aw ardi ng the w as t ew at er
c o n tra c t, ha d e n g a g e d in a n u n law fu lly ex e c u ted R F P p ro c e ss . JW P m o v e d to in ter v e n e in the a cti o n , to w h ich th e C ity fi led a joind er. T h ere after, the c ir cu itco u rtd en ied J W P ’s
m o tio n to in ter v e n e . JW P a n d th e C ity n o w a p p e a l.

### 3 I S S UE ¶4
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n denyi ng J W P’ s m ot i on t o i nt ervene i n the under l yi ng appel l at e pr ocee di ngs betw een U W S and the C i ty. A N A L Y S IS ¶5. T he r i ghtt o appea l the C i ty’ s act i on w as cr eat ed by t he Legi s l atur e. U W S f i l ed the appea l pur s uantt o S ect i on 11-51- 75, w hi ch pr ovi des that“[ a] ny per s on aggr i eve d by a j udgm entordeci s i on of the boar d of

s upervi s or s , ormuni ci pal a uthor i t i es of a ci ty, t ow n, or vil l age, m ay ap peal .
. . . ” M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 1-51-75 (R ev. 20 02 ) ( em ph asi s added ). JW P clea rl y w as n o t “ a g g rie v ed , ” b ec au se itw as a w ard ed a c o n tr ac t pay ing it$ 2 m il li o n m o re th a n w h a t U W S h a d b id to p e rfo rm th e sa m e se rv ice s. T h e ra tio n a le b e h in d p e rm itt in g o n ly the “a ggr i eved” t o appea l i s l ogi cal
. I ti s notthe ac torconductof a pr evai l i ng bi dderw hi ch i s s ubj ectt o exam i nat i on atthe appe l l at e l evel
. R ather , the ci r cui tcourts i t t i ng as an appel l at e courtw as char ged w i t h det erm i ni ng w hetherthe “de ci s i on of the boar d of
s u p e rv i s o r s , o rmu n i c i p a l a u th o r i t i e s ” wa s a rb i tr a ry , c a p r i c i o u s , o rc o n tr a ry t o a p p l i c a b l e l a w. See Falco L im e, Inc. v. Mayo r & A lderm en of t h e Cit y of V i cksbu rg , 836 So. 2d 711, 721 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); Coope rv. Ci t y of Pi c ay une , 511 So. 2d 922, 923 ( M i s s . 1987) ; M i ss. C ode A n n . § 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). A lth o u g h the p re v a ili n g b id d e r m a y b e in ter e ste d , itis n o t a
nece s s a ry ori nd i s pe ns a bl e p a r ty, n ora p r op e rp a r ty un de rthe s t a tut e g r a nt i ng the r i ghtof appea l s ol el y t o the “a ggr i eved. ” M i ss. C od e A nn. § 11- 51- 75 ( R ev. 2002)
. U W S, an “aggr i eved” party, s oughtappel l at e r el i ef
. J W P m oved t o i nt ervene i n the appe al , des pi t e the abs ence of

a r i ghtt o appea l ori nt ervene unde rSect i on 11- 51- 75.

### Th is is in co ntrast to the F ederal Ru les of App ellate Procedure. See F.R. A.P. 15(d) 2 

### (inte rve nti on per

mi tt ed unde r Ti tl e I V – “R eviewor Enf orc em ent of an Orde r of

an Adminis trativeAgenc y, Board, Comm is si oner , or Off ic er”) . This im

port ant dis tinction betw een th e Fed eral Ru les of App ellate Pro cedure andthe M ississipp i Ru le s o f App ellate Proc edur e r enders Sta te o f Texasv. U.S. Department of Ener gy , 754 F. 2d 550 (5th Cir
. 19 85 ), cited bythe d issent, d isting uish able. See id . at 551 (“ Rule15(d) of the Fe deralRule s of Appe ll at e Proce duregover ns inte rve nti ons in adm ini strative appe al s suc h a s this one. ”)
. Again, the Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Appe ll at e Proc edur e do not providef or int er vention at the app ellate level. T he remainin g federal cases citedb y the dissent are p lainlydistin gu ishab le as theyeach address a federal d istrict court sittingas a trial court, no t an ap pellate co urt. See Ingeb retsen v. J

ackon Pu b. Sch. D ist. , 86 4 F . Supp . 14 73 (S.D . Miss. 1 99 4); Bush v . Vit er na , 740 F. 2d 350 ( 5th Cir
. 1984). Whil e ea ch ca seprovide s an exc el le nt disc uss ion of inte rve nti on under

Fede ra l Rul e of

Civi l Proce dure24, ultimately de nying inte rve nti on in b othcases, that is n ot th e scenario befo re this C ourt. See I ngebret sen , 8 64 F. Supp. at 14 85 ; Bu sh , 740 F. 2d at

358-59. 4 ¶6. J W P cl ai m s i t s r i ght t o i nt ervene ar i s es f r om M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 24. B utthi s C our ti n Cooperc learly p o inted o u t th at “ the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re
. . . a p p ly to tr ia l p ro c e e d in g s o n ly , e x c e p t w h e re th e re in e x p re s s ly p ro v id e d to th e c o n tr a ry .” Cooper , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d at 9 2 3
. M o re o v e r, p o st- Cooper , the M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P r o c e d u re w e re a d o p te d a n d n o w c o n tr o l a p p e a ls
. See “ O r de rA do pt i ng the M i s s i s s i ppi R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re ” (“ th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re w ill p ro m o te the pr om pt , f

ai r , and ef

f i ci entadmi ni s tr at i on of

j us t i ce on appeal

. . . . [T ]he [R u les ] . . . a re [] ad o p ted as ru les g o v ern ing all p roc ee d ing s in the M issi ssipp i Su p rem e C o u rtan d the C o u rt
o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i, a n d th e tria l co u rts o

f th is S ta te t o the ext entpr ovi ded

. . . . ”) ( emphasi s added)
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e cl ear l y and
u n e q u iv o c a lly d o n o t p ro v id e fo r in ter v e n tio n a t th e a p p e llate lev e l. 2 ¶ 7
. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 p ro v id e s th a t: [ t ] hes e rul es gover n proc edur e i n appeal s t o t he Supre m e C our tof M i s s i s s i ppi and the C our tof

A ppeal s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , an d proc eedi ngs on

### For inst anc e, Mis si ss ippiRuleof Appe ll at e P roc edur e 31( c) re quires thefi ling of 3 

### “[ a] n ori gina l and three(3) copi es of allbrie fs
. . . . ” M. R.A. P. 31( c) . But in t he c onte xt of a c ircui t c ourt

si tting a s an appe ll at e c ourt , Uni for m Circ uit and County C ourt Rule5.06 logi ca lly re quires “only an originaland onecopy of ea ch brie f. ” URCCC 5. 06. Unif orm Circui t and County Cour t Rul e 5. 01 st at es , “ [e ] xcept f or c as es appe al ed 4 

### direc tly from

justic e court or muni cipalcourt , al l ca se s appe al ed to c ircui t c ourt sha llbe on there cord and not

a tri alde novo. ” URCCC 5. 01. 5 pet i t i ons f

orw r i t s orotherr el i ef

w hi ch the Supr eme C our torthe C our tof A p p e a ls o r a ju stic e o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt o r ju d g e o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is e m p o w e re d to g ra n t. W h e n th e se ru les p ro v id e fo r th e m a k in g o f a m o tio n in the t ri al co urt , the pr ocedur e f orm aki ng s uch mot i on s hal l be i n acc or dance w ith th e p ra c tice o f th e trial c o u rt. M
. R
. A
. P. 1. T he C om m entt o R ul e 1 adds thatthe enumer at ed: [ r ] ul es w hi ch pr ovi de f orthe maki ng of a m ot i on i n the tr i al courti ncl ude R u les 4 (g ), ex ten sio n o f ti m e to a p p e a l; 6 , d e ter m in a tio n o f in fo rm a p a u p e ris s ta tu s ; 8 (b ), s ta y o n a p p e a l to b e fi rs t s o u g h t in tr ia l c o u rt ; a n d 1 0 (e )[ ,] corr ect i on of

r ecor d on appea l
. T r i al courtpr act i ce i s governed by the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

C i vi l P roce dur e, M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence , a pp l i c a bl e un i f

orm r ul e s , a nd l oc a l rul e s w he r e a do pt e d p ur s ua ntt o M
. R. C. P. 8 3
. T h e term “tri al co u rt ” in th ese rules inc lud es a circu ito r ch an ce ry c o u rt sittin g a s a n a p p e llate c o u rt. M
. R
. A
. P. 1 cmt
. B as ed upon thi s C om m ent , the di s s entm ai nt ai ns that“the R ul es of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re . . . req u ir e the ap p li ca ti o n o f th e M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re t o a ci r cui tcourts i t t i ng as an appe l l at e court . ” ( D i s s . O p. at¶ 31)
. T hi s C our tagr ees t hat th e R u les a s e n u m e ra ted in th e C o m m e n t can be appl i cabl e i n an appe al ed ca s e. B ut 3
comm on s ens e di ct at es thatthe appl i cabi l i ty of cert ai n M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e, M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of

E vi dence , uni f

or m rul es , and l ocal rul es adopt ed pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 83, w i l l de pend upon the natur e of the appea l
. I n a tr i al de novo ( f or 4
e x a m p le, a d ire c t ap p e a l fro m ju stic e c o u rt o r m u n icip a l co u rt), th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re (in c lu d in g R u le 2 4 o n in ter v e n tio n ) a n d th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e w o u ld

### See Cook , 83 6 S o. 2dat 71 7-1 8 (stating th at it is “ one of thos e c aseswh ere a party 5 

### withstandin g challen ges bo ard actionon gro un ds it is ultra vires andwhere that partyis entitle d to proce ed denovo . . . . ”) (e mpha si s a dded)
. 6 a p p ly
. See U R C C C 5. 01, 5. 07 ( “[ a] l l pr oceedi ngs on an appea l de novo w i l l be governed by t he M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s o f Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e , wher e a pp l i c a bl e , the M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s of Ev i d e n c e , a n d t h e s e Ru l e s ” )
. Bu tt h e d i s s e n t ’ s r e l i a n c e o n l a n g u a g e f r o m Coo per cont ai ned i n C um m ings v. B enderm an , 681 So. 2d 97, 100 ( M i s s . 1996), does nots uppor ti nt ervent i on
o n a p p e a l i n th e p re s e n t c a s e . (D is s . O p . a t ¶ 1 9 ). C um m ings i nvol ved a pr i m ary el ect i on
c o n te s t, w h ic h a ls o is a tr ia l d e n o v o . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 23- 15- 931 ( R ev. 2007) ( “[ t ] he sp ec ial tr ibu n al .
. . sh all full y h ea r th e c o n testo r co m p lai n t de n o v o . . . . ”). ¶ 8
. L ik e w ise , th e d iss e n t’s p ro p o sitio n th a t “[t]h is C o u rt r epeatedl y has al l ow ed

a c irc u it
courtt o pr ocee d de novo i n a n act i on appea l ed underSect i on 11- 51- 75 w her e a boar d f ai l ed t o conduct

a h eari ng o n the m at t eri n is s ue [ , ] ” i s notonl y del us i ve, butal s o al t ogether i nap pli cable i n the p res ent cas e. (D i ss. O p. at¶ 21 ) ( em ph asi s added ). Iti s del usi ve b ecause

“ w h e re n o h e a ri n g is h e ld , th e a c tio n d o e s n o t re a lly p ro c e e d u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 a t a ll[,]”
a n d b e c a u s e th e p r o p o s i t i o n f r o m Co o kv. B o a rdo

f S u p e rv iso rs o

f L o w n de s C o u n ty , 571 So. 2d 932, 934 (M i s s . 1990) , ci t ed by the di s s ent , w as l at erques t i oned i n Fa lc o L ime 5 i nsofaras Cookfa iled to p ro v id e c itatio n to sim ilar c a se s, “ [n ]or d o e s o u r re s e a rc h re a d ily yi el d a l i s tof

them. ” Fa lc o L ime , 836 So. 2d at717- 18 n. 4. ¶9
. A de novo appea l underS e c t i on 11
- 51
- 75 i s i na pp l i c a bl e he r e be c a us e s uf f i c i ent “hea ri ng ” proc eedi ngs w er e hel d. T he di s s ent ’ s ar gum entt o the contr ary i s a r ed herr i ng, d istra c tin g fo c u s fr o m th e o n ly iss u e p re se n ted o n a p p e a l, i .e., inte rv e n tio n . T h e a p p e llate

### 7

b rie fs f iled h e re in in n o w a y a ss e rt a la c k o f “ h e a rin g ” o r c laim th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in f ai l i ng t o conducta de novo tr i al
. J W P’ s bri ef proc l ai m s thi s cert ai nty, unequi vocal l y s t at i ng that f oll ow i ng the sub m i ssi on of com peti ng propo sal s: ther e ens ued l engthy an d com pl ex admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs , i n w hi ch the C i ty negot i at ed w i th both [ J W P] and [ U W S]
. T he mat t erw as cons i der ed by the J acks on C i ty C ounci l on s ever al di f f er entocca s i ons . A tdi f f er entt i m es dur i ng the cour s e of

the pr ocee di ngs , the D i r ect orof Publ i c W or ks , act i ng f

or the M ayor , m ade di f

f er entr ecomm endat i ons as t o w hi ch of the compet i ng ent i t i es . . . s houl d be aw ar ded the contr act . T he det ai l s of thes e i nvol ved pr ocee di ng s a r e be yo nd t he s c op e of the pr e s e nta pp e a l , w hi c h i nv ol ve s the li m it ed issue o f inter venti on . S u ffic e it t o sa y th a t at a sp e c ial m e e tin g h e ld on N ovember10, 2008, t he Ja cks on C i ty C ounci l , by a vot e of 4- 1, acc ept ed th e fin a l re c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e P u b lic W o rk s D ire c to r a n d o f th e M a y o r to a w a rd th e c o n tr a c t to [J W P ]. ( E m phas i s added. ) U W S ar gues thati t s ci r cui tcour tappeal “al l eges . . . t hatt he C i ty act ed
a rb itrar ily , ca p ric io u sly , an d c o n tra ry to law th ro u g h o u t th e p ro c u re m e n t p ro c e ss a n d in its
u ltim a te d e c is io n to d e n y th e a w a rd o f c o n tr a c t to [U W S ].” ¶10. M or eover , thi s C our t has s t at ed thatthe hear i ng r equi r ementi s “ notne ces s ar i l y one
acc or di ng t o t he f

orm of a tr i al i n a courtof

l aw . ” Cook , 571 So. 2d at934. T hi s C our thas decl i ned: t o l i m i tthe appl i cat i on of Sect i on 11- 51- 75 t o those i ns t ance s w her e ci ty or county governi ng boar ds cal l i n w i tnes s es ori nt er es t ed part i es pr o and con a nd l i st en t o them expr es s thei ropi ni ons be f or e r eac hi ng a de ci s i on. Such a l i m i t at i on w oul d dr as t i cal l y l i m i tthe appl i cat i on of Sect i on 11- 51- 75 and w o u ld a lso b e in c o n sis ten t w ith o u r a lre a d y -c ited h o ld in g th a t th e sta tu te appl i es t o “any a ct ” thataggr i eves a party. C i ty a nd c ounty governm entdoes notr equi r e a s tr aw vot e of i nt er es t ed part i es w heneve ra n a ct i on i s pr opos ed, ho w ever pragm at i cal l y d esi rabl e such p art ici pati on m ay b e i n som e cases. N um er ous s t atut es m andat e a f or m al hear i ng by boar d orcounci l , butFal co h a s a d d u c e d n o n e o f

th e s e a s c o n tr o l l i n g th e p r e s e n tc a s e . On th e c o n tr a ry , we have s t at ed thata c ounty boa r d ne ed not“ r eci t e al l the evi dence thatappea r ed b efo re the m , o r . . . set o u t i n full , in the iro rde r, all the e v iden ti ary m att ers p e rt in e n t to th e c o n tr o v e rs y ” in o rd e r f o r i ts o rd e r t o b e v a lid
. H al l v.

### 8

Fra n k lin Co u n ty , 184 M i s s . 77, 86, 185 So. 591, 594 ( 1939) ( hol di ng that abs ence of

s uch evi dence i n boar d’ s orde rdi d notj us t i f y ci r cui tcourti n goi ng b ey o n d b il l of ex ce p ti o n s). Fa lc o L ime , 8 3 6 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 8 -1 9
. See al s o Malone v. Lea ke C ou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 4 -45 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ) (suffi cien t ev id e n ce o f “h ea ri n g ” thro u g h B o ard
m in u tes d isc u ss in g su b

jec t co n tra c t, he a rin g re g a rd in g q u a lifica tio n s o f b id d e rs, m o tio n to
a w a rd c o n tra c t, an d u n a n im o u s v o te) . T h e v o lu m in o u s b ill o f e x c e p tio n s p re se n ted in th is
c a s e in c lu d e s , in tera lia , t he R FP i s s ued by the C i ty, the “Eval uat i on of Pr opos al s ” pr epar ed by the C i ty’ s D epart m entof Publ i c W or ks , m ul t i pl e s et s of mi nut es f

r om s peci al m eet i ngs of the C i ty C ounci l , an exc erptf r om the Sept ember18, 2008, s peci al m eet i ng, and t he N ovember11, 2008, “ O r derA uthor i zi ng M ayort o Execut e C ontr actw i th [ J W P] forthe M anage m entof

[ the C i ty’ s ] W as t ew at erT r eatm entFaci l i t i es . ” A ccor di ngl y, unl i ke Cook , thi s i s notan exc ept i onal cas e ber efto f hea r i ng, “w her e a pa r ty w i th s t andi ng chal l enges b o a rd a c tio n o n g ro u n d s it is u ltr a v ir e s a n d w h e re th a t p a rt y is e n title d to p ro c e e d d e n o v o .” Cook , 571 So. 2d at934. ¶11. R egar di ng appea l s underSect i on 11- 51- 75: the ci r cui tcourts i t s onl y as an appel l at e court , a nd m ay cons i derno evi dence pr es ent ed out s i de the bi l l of exce pt i on s. . . . T hi s has been i n pl ace f orover 150 year s : “A n appea l by bi l l of exce pt i ons w oul d nece s s ar i l y conf i ne the r evi s i ng C our tt o the mat t er s of l aw a r i s i ng upon the exce pt i ons . ” Y al ab us ha Co u n ty v. Carbry , 1 1 M is s . 5 2 9 , 5 4 8 (1 8 4 4 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by D is m ukes v. Stokes , 4 1 M is s . 4 3 0 , 4 3 5 (1 8 6 7 ) . . . . Fa lc o L ime , 836 So. 2d at716. T he ci r cui tc ourts i t t i ng a s a n a ppel l at e courta pp l i es t he
s ame st andar d of

r evi ew “t o the B oar d’ s l egi s l at i ve ac t ” as t o the “r evi ew of admi ni s tr at i ve agenc y deci s i ons . ” Id . at 7 2 1 . T h a t is, th e B o a rd ’s a c tio n w ill b e re v e rse d o n ly “ if it i s

### Exte nding thedi ss ent ’s argum ent on thec omprehe nsi ve appl ic ation of the 6 

### Mis si ss ippiRules of Ci vilProc edur e t o circ uit courts si tting a s a

ppel latecourts , c ould e it

her partyhere invo ke R

ule 3 8 o f the M ississipp i Ru les of C ivil P rocedure b y d emand ing that a jur y cons ide r i ts appe al , or

Rules 26-37 see king deposi ti ons and dis cove ry on a ppea l? See M.R .C.P . 26 to 3 8. Seeals o Falc o Lime , 836 So. 2d at 717 (“ [b] ec aus e Fal co was re quired to p roceedun der S ection11 -51 -75 , the circu it court was requiredto functio n inits app ellate rol e and no dis cove ry or

te stim ony outs idethebil l of excepti ons shoul d havebee n al lowe d on theBoard’s dec is ion t o cl oseVKS.” ) 9 arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous , ori s nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. ” Malone , 841 So. 2d at143. I n thi s c ont ext , l i t t l e beyond U ni f or m Ci r cui ta nd C ounty C our tR ul es 5. 02 thr ough 5 .1 0 a p p lie s . See U R C C C 5 .0 2 to 5 .1 0 . A s th e p re s e n t c a s e in v o lv e s th is ty p e o f a p p e a l, i nterven t i on w as not an op t i on avail able t o JW P un der the R ules
. 6 ¶ 1 2
. Bu t th i s i s n o t t o s a y th a t th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s s h o u l d b e b a rr e d
. As Coo per apt l y r ecogni zed, “[ a] ny courtof thi s st at e s i t t i ng as an appe l l at e courthas t he in h e re n t au th o rity to a llo w a d d iti o n a l p a rties to p a rtic ip a te in th e a p p e a l u p o n tim e ly appl i cat i on orupon t he court ’ s i nvi t at i on. ” Cooper , 511 So. 2d at923. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 2 9 p ro v id e s a n a v e n u e fo r p e rso n s o th e r th a n th e p a rties to p a rticip a te in th e a p p e lla te p ro c e s s v ia th e filin g o f a n a m ic u s c u ri a e b ri e f. See M .R .A .P . 2 9 ; Cooper , 511 So. 2d at924 ( endor s i ng part i ci pat i on i n the appel l at e pr oces s thr ough f i l i ng an ami cus
cu ri ae b ri ef). ¶13. J W P cert ai nl y had the r i ghtt o s eek part i ci pat i on a tthe appel l at e l evel by s eeki ng l eave t o f i l e an a m i cus cur i ae br i ef , how ever , i nt ervent i on w as notan avai l abl e opt i on. A s no
cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, s t atut e, orcourtrul e perm i t s i nt ervent i on, the adopt i on of t he M issi ssipp i R u les o f A p p ell ate P ro c e d u re e ffecti v ely s u p p lanted that p o rt ion o f Cooper ’s h o lding w h ich p rov ides , w ith o u t cit ati o n , th at “th e [c] ir cu it[c] o u rt , w h en sitti n g as a co u rt

### 10

of appea l s , has t he author i ty t o al l ow t hi r d par t i es t o i nt ervene i n t he appe al
. ” Cooper , 511 So. 2d at923. I f

the yea rw as 1910, ra thert han 2010, thi s C our tm i ghtagr ee w i th the di s s ent th a t G ates contr ols
. L i kew i s e, i f i tw as 1987, thi s C our tm i ghtagr ee w i th f or m erJ us t i ce R o b e rtso n th a t Coo

per w as contr oll ed by G ates . See id
. B ut , atpr es ent , the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e contr ol excl us i vel y. ¶ 1 4
. T h e c irc u it c o u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied JW P ’s M o tio n to In ter v e n e , b u t th a t d e n ial s h o u ld have be en pr emi s ed upon the abs ence of any au t ho ri ty f ora ci r cui tcourts i t t i ng as an appel l at e courtt o gr antJ W P’ s M ot i on t o I nt ervene. “I ti s w el l e s t abl i shed in our j ur i s prudence thatthe r i ghtr es ul tr eac hed f orthe w r ong r eas on w i l l notbe di s turbed on app eal
. ” G re e n v. Clea ry W a ter , S e w e r & Fire D ist. , 1 7 So. 3 d 55 9, 5 72 ( M i s s . 2009) (cit ati o n s o m itted). CO NC L US I ON ¶15
. A s n o authori ty exis t ed forJ W P t o i nterven e, the ci rcui tcou rt ’s de n ial o f JW P ’s
m o ti o n to interv en e w as p rop er, al b eitfor the w ron g rea so n . T h e o rde r of the C ir cu itC o u rt of the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty i s af

f i r m ed. ¶16. AFF I RM ED
. W ALLER, C. J . , CAR LS ON , P. J . , DI CK I NSON, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J ., C O N C U R . L A M A R , J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y . G R A V E S , P .J ., D I SSE N T S W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y K I T C H E N S, J. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶17. J acks on W at erPar tner s hi p ( J W P) ha d a r i ghtt o i nt ervene i n the ci r cui tcourtact i on cont es t i ng t he aw ar d of a contr actt o i tby the C i ty of J acks on. B eca us e I w oul d f i nd thatt he
c irc u it co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g JW P ’s m o tio n to in ter v e n e , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.

### 11

¶ 1 8
. T h e m a

jo rity ’s s ta te m e n t t h a t “th e a d o p tio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P roc ed u re e ffecti v ely s u p p lanted ” the ap p li ca b le po rt ion o f Coope rv. Ci t y of Pi c ay une , 511 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ), is e rro n e o u s. (M a j. O p . at ¶ 1 3 ). S p e c ifica lly , the m a jo rity st at es: J W P cert ai nl y had t he r i ghtt o s eek pa r t i ci pat i on atthe appe l l at e l evel by s eeki ng l eave t o fi l e an ami cus cur i ae br i ef , how ever , i nt ervent i on w as not a n a v a ilab le o p tio n . A s n o c o n stitu tio n a l p ro v isio n , sta tu te, o r c o u rt ru le p e rm its in ter v e n tio n , the a d o p tio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e lla te P roc ed u re e ffecti v ely s u p p lanted that p o rt ion o f Co o p er’s hol di ng w hi ch pr ovi des , w i thoutci t at i on, t hat“the [ c] i r cui t] c] our t , w hen s i t t i ng as a courtof a p p e a ls , h a s th e a u th o ri ty to a llo w th ir d p a rt ie s to in te rv e n e in th e a p p e a l.” Cooper , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d at 92 3
. If th e y ea r w as 1 9 1 0 , rath er th an 2 0 1 0 , this C o u rt m ig h t a g re e w ith th e d iss e n t th a t G ates co n tro ls. L ik e w ise if it w a s 1 9 8 7 , this C o u rt m ig h t ag re e w ith fo rm e r Ju stic e R o b e rtso n th a t Cooperw as contr ol l ed by G ates . See id
. B u t, at pre sen t, the M issi ssipp i R u les o f A p p ella te Pr ocedur e contr ol excl us i vel y. (M aj. O p . at ¶ 1 3 ). ¶19
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr oced ure w ere adop t ed eff ect i ve Janu ary 1, 1995. O n S ept ember12, 1996, thi s C our tdeci ded C um m ings v. B enderm an , 681 So
. 2d 97 (M i ss. 1996) , and s ai d:

A ny courtof

thi s St at e s i t t i ng as an appe l l at e courthas the i nher ent a u th o rity to a llo w a d d iti o n a l p a rties to p a rticip a te in th e a p p e a l u p o n tim e ly a p p lic a tio n o r u p o n th e c o u rt ’s in v ita tio n . Coope rv. Ci t y of Pi c ay une , 511 So. 2 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). In d ee d , there m ay b e o cc asio n s w h en the c o u rt s h o u ld d e c lin e to a c t u n til a ll n e c e s s a ry p a r ti e s h a v e b e e n jo in e d
. See G ates v. U ni on N aval Stor es Co. , 9 2 M iss. 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 , 4 5 S o . 9 7 9 (19 0 8 ). C um m ings , 681 So. 2d at100. T hi s C our tf ur thers ai d thatthe “Ci r cui tC our t , w hen s i t t i ng
as a courtof

a ppeal s , ha s the author i ty t o a l l ow thi r d pa r t i es t o i nt ervene i n the appe al
. ” Id
. a t 1 0 1 . A p p ly in g R u le 2 4 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t:

### 12

I ti s the opi ni on of

thi s C our tthatthe St at e C om m i t t ee’ s i nt eres t s w er e not a d e q u a tely re p re se n ted b y C u m m in g s in the elec ti o n c o n tes t, an d c o n se q u e n tly th e S ta te C o m m itt e e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to in ter v e n e p e rm iss iv e ly , if n o t b y rig h t. Id
. at102. ¶ 2 0
. T h is C o u rt h a s c lea rly ap p lied the M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re to a p p e llate i nt ervent i on act i ons s i nce the ef f ect i ve dat e of

the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. A s a r es ul t , t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e do not“exc l us i vel y contr ol , ” as t he
m a jo ri ty s ta te s . (M a

j. O p . a t ¶ 1 3 ). ¶21. T he m aj or i ty at t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h C um m ings on the bas i s thati ti nvol ved a tr i al de
n o v o an d b y asse rt ing that the m att er b efo re this C o u rtd o es n o t. H o w ev er, th e m ajority ’s
a ttem p ted d istin c tio n is e rro n e o u s. T h is C o u rt re p e a ted ly h a s a llo w e d a c irc u it c o u rt to p ro c e e d d e n o v o in a n a c tio n a p p e a led u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 w h e re a b o a rd f a ile d to
c o n d u c t a h e a ri n g o n th e m a tte r i n is s u e . See Cook v. B d. of Superv isors of

L ow ndes Co u n ty , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ T h is b e c o m e s o n e o f th o se c a se s w h e re a p a rty
w ith sta n d in g c h a llen g e s b o a rd a c tio n o n g ro u n d s it is u ltra v ire s a n d w h e re th a t p a rty is
e n title d to p ro c e e d d e n o v o .” ). See al s o Malone v. L eak e Cou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 841 So. 2d 141, 144 ( M i s s . 2003) ( “I ti s t rue t hatw her e a c ounty f ai l s t o hol d any ki nd of

hear i ng, a p arty w ith st an d ing i s en ti tl ed to d e n o v o rev iew
. ”); Falco L im e, Inc. v. Mayo r & A lderm en of

Cit y of V i cksbu rg , 8 36 So. 2d 711, 717- 18 ( M i s s . 2002) ( “[ E ] r go, w her e no h ea ri n g h as b ee n h eld, th e c ir cu itco u rtd o e s n o t sitin it s ap p ell ate c ap ac ity , an d that co u rt
m ay thus pr ocee d de novo w i th r es pectt o the evi dence i tm ay cons i der
. ”) ; and N ew el l v. J o n e s C o u n ty , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ).

### 13

¶ 2 2
. T h e m a

jo rity ref e rs to the cita tio n o f th is a u th o rity a s “ d e lu siv e ” a n d sta tes th a t itis “i nappl i cabl e i n the pr es entc as e. ” ( M aj
. O p. a t¶ 8)
. H ow ever , the m aj or i ty’ s at t em pt ed p e rv e rsio n o f th is a u th o rity is e rro n e o u s a n d d o e s n o t o v e rc o m e th e m a jo rity ’s in a b ili ty to ci t e t o any port i on o f t he re cor d i n the i ns t antcas e t o es t abl i s h thata hea r i ng w as hel d. Fur ther , the maj or i ty’ s r eas oni ng i s con t radi ct ory. Fi r s t , the maj or i ty s t at es thatt he pr opos i t i on es t abl i s hed by thi s a uthor i ty i s “ del us i ve beca us e ‘ w her e no hea r i ng i s hel d, the act i on doe s notr eal l y pr ocee d unde rSec t i on 11- 51- 75 atal l [ , ] ’ and bec aus e the pr opos i t i on f r o m Co o kv. B o a rdo

f S u p e rv iso rs o

f L o w n de s C o u n ty , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ), ci t ed by the di s s ent[ f

ootnot e om i t t ed] w as l at erques t i oned i n Fa lc o L ime i nsofaras Cook f ai l ed t o pr ovi de ci t at i on t o s i m i l arcas es , ‘ [ n] ordoes ourr es ear ch r eadi l y y i el d a l i s tof them. ’ ” ( M aj
. O p. at¶ 8) ( ci t i ng Falco , 8 3 6 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 7 -1 8 n .4 ). T h e m a jo rity is acknow l edgi ng thatan ac t i on does notr eal l y pr ocee d underSect i on 11- 51- 75 w hen no hear i ng i s hel d, thus pr ocee di ng de novo. B utthen the maj or i ty appea r s t o be cl ai m i ng t hat ther e i s no authori t y forpr ocee di ng de novo bec aus e Cookci t ed no ca s es f ors uch a p ro p o s itio n . Y e t, Falco , on w hich the m aj ori ty rel i es, ci t es Cook e x te n s iv e ly
. Falco , 836 So. 2d at717- 19. Fur ther , thi s C our tdi d notques t i on Cooki n Falco , butm er el y s ai d: T he C our tl abel ed t he act i on i n Cook“ o n e o f th o se c a se s w h e re a p a rty w ith s t andi ng chal l enges boar d act i on on gr ounds i ti s ul tr a vi r es and w her e that part y i s ent i t l ed t o pr ocee d de novo, ” though unf or tunat el y i tdi d notpr ovi de ci t at i ons t o “thos e ca s es . ” Id . [n . 4 ]. [ n. 4]
. N ordoes ourre s ear ch r eadi l y yi el d a l i s tof them. T o the ext entthatthe f

act s s urr oundi ng an ac t i on ar e noti n di s put e, the cl ai m thati tw as ul tr a vi r es i s r evi ew ed de novo a s a m at t erof l aw , butthat i s notthe s ame as di s pens i ng w i th the bi l l of e x c e p tio n s .

### 14

Id
. at717- 18 n. 4. T hen the maj or i ty s t at es that“[ a] de novo appeal underSect i on 11- 51- 75 is inap p li ca b le he re b ec au se su ffi cien t ‘ h ea ri n g ’ pro ce ed ing s w ere h eld.” (M aj. O p . at ¶ 9 ). H o w e v e r, ag a in , the m a jo rity is u n a b le to c ite a n y p o rtio n o f th e re c o rd in th is m a tter to
es t abl i s h thata hea r i ng i ncl udi ng J W P and U W S w as hel d, beca us e ther e w as no hear i ng. T he maj or i ty’ s f

i ndi ng that “suff

i ci ent‘ hear i ng’ pr ocee di ngs w er e hel d” bas ed on the

“ v o lu m in o u s b ill o f e x c e p tio n s,” d o c u m e n ts p re p a re d b y th e C ity , o r m e e tin g s o f th e C ity C o u n cil is w h o ll y u n su p p o rt ed b y the fa cts. (M aj. O p . at ¶¶ 9 , 1 0 ). ¶23. T he maj or i ty’ s cont ent i on thatthe pos i t i on thatno hear i ng w as hel d i s a “r ed herr i ng, d istra c tin g fo c u s fro m the o n ly issu e p re se n ted o n a p p e a l, i .e., inte rv e n tio n ” is a b su rd . (M a j. O p. at¶ 9). T he m aj or i ty i s cor r ectt hatt he appel l at e br i ef s do notass erta “l ack of ‘ hear i ng’
o r claim that the tri al co u rt e rred in fail ing to co n d u ct a d e n o v o tr ial
. ” (M aj. O p . at ¶ 9 ). J W P w oul d f

i r s thave t o be al l ow ed t o i nt ervene bef or e t he as s ert i on of any c l ai m r egar di ng a l ack of a hear i ng on the m er i t s . F ur ther , the i s s ue r egar di ng a de novo s t andar d w as r ai s ed sol el y by the m aj ori ty i n i t s at t em pted di st inction o f C u m m ings . (M a j. O p . at ¶ 7 ). T h is d iss e n tin g o p in io n is b e in g w ritten b e c a u se I w o u ld f in d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g J W P ’s m o tio n to in te rv e n e . (D is s . O p . a t ¶ ¶ 1 7 , 4 1 ). ¶24. T he m aj or i ty i s cor r ectt hatt hi s C our tappear s t o have f ound thata pr operhear i ng had been he l d i n Falco . Falco , 836 So. 2d 718- 19. H ow ever , the maj or i ty f ai l s t o acknow l edge th e c o n te x t o f t h e d e c is io n o r t h e fa c ts o f t h a t c a s e . Falco wa s a c o n s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l o f two
c a s e s . Id
. at713. Speci f i cal l y, thi s C our ts ai d: I n the f i r s tcas e, M ayorR obertM
. W al ker , and al derm en Samuel D
. H abee b and G ertrude A
. Y oung of the C i ty of

V i cks bur g ( herei naf

t er“the B oar d”) appea l the J ul y 7, 1999, j udgm entof the W arr en C ounty C i r cui tC our t , w hi ch

### 15

p erm an en tl y en

jo in e d th e B o a rd fro m c lo sin g th e V ick sb u rg M u n ici p al A irp o rt ( her ei naf t er“V K S”)
. . . . T he B oar d al s o appea l s the ci r cui tcourt ’ s entry of p arti al su m m ary jud g m en t ag ains t i t on D ec em b er 1 4 , 1 9 9 8 , in w h ich th e c o u rt f ound thatt he B oar d w as re qui r ed t o cr eat e a “ s epar at e corpor at e author i ty” .

. . bef or e i tcoul d “ac tunderthe A i rpor tA uthor i t i es L aw ” t o j oi nt l y oper at e the V i cks bur g T al l ul ah R egi onal A i rpor t( “V T R ”) w i th W arr en C ounty and a L oui s i ana c i ty and par i s h. A hos tof V i cks bur g bus i nes s es , as s how n i n the s tyl e of thi s cas e, and f orconveni ence and cl ar i ty r ef err ed t o a s “Fl as co” a f

t erFal co Li m e, I nc. , the p a rt y fi rs t n a m e d th e re in , fi le d a c ro s s -a p p e a l. . . . T he s econd c as e cons ol i dat ed i n t hi s appeal i s F al co’ s ow n appea l f r om anotherj udgm entof

the W arr en C ounty C i r cui tC our t , d at ed J une 30, 1999, w hi ch di s m i s s ed Fal co’ s appea l of the B oar d’ s deci s i on t o cr eat e a m uni ci pal a u th o rity a n d to a p p o in t tw o c o m m iss io n e rs to th a t au th o rity Falco , 8 3 6 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 3 -1 4 . T h is C o u rt fu rth e r n o ted th a t:

T he “Fal co” pa r t i es , al l of w hom us ed V K S orot herw i s e bene f i t t ed f r om i t , f i l ed a f l urr y of act i ons i n chanc ery, cir cui tand county court s on M a rc h 6 , 1 9 9 8 , se e k in g to k e e p V K S o p e n a n d to re c o v e r fr o m th e B o a rd in thei ri ndi vi dual capaci t i es al l the t ax money t hatthe B oar d had expe nded on V T R , as w e ll as F a lco ’s r e a so n a b le a tto rn e y fe e s a n d e x p e n se s. T h e c irc u it c o u rt co n sid e re d the se cla im s u n d e r F a lco ’s b ill o f ex c e p tio n s (s e e k in g to perm anent l y enj oi n t he cl os ur e) as w el l as underi t s amended compl ai nt (se e k in g to e n

jo in th e c lo s u re a n d to im p o se p e rso n a l li a b ili ty ). T h e c irc u it courtgr ant ed a t empora r y re s tr ai ni ng orde ron M ar ch 23, w hi ch w as convert ed t o a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on on A pr i l 20. I n D ece m ber1998, i tgr ant ed part i al s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a g a in s t th e B o a rd
. . . . Id . a t 7 1 4
. ¶25. A l l of the par t i es on appeal i n Falco p arti cipa ted in the a cti o n in the tr ial co u rt . T h ere
w as no i s s ue of

a party notbei ng perm i t t ed t o i nt ervene. Fur ther , t he i s s ue r ai s ed on appe al by the Board an d from w h ich th e m a jority h ere q u o tes w as a ctua ll y : “W h ethe r F alco ’s
e x c lu s iv e re m e d y w a s b y n o tic e o f a p p e a l a n d b ill o f e x c e p tio n s a s p e r § 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 , notby a
s ui tf ora t em por ar y r es tr ai ni ng or derand pr el i m i nar y i nj unct i on . ” Falco , 836 So. 2d at715 ( emphasi s added)
. O nl y t he por t i on quot ed by t he m aj or i ty i n par agr aph 10 actual l y comes

### 16

f r om the tr i a l d e n ov o di s c us s i on i n Falc o . F u rth e r, th a t p o rtio n q u o ted b y th e m a jo rity in p ara g rap h 1 0 is ac tually pre ce d ed b y a d etail ed d iscu ssion o f the B o a rd ’s act i ons i n Falco , t o w hich this C ou rtthen sai d: “D oes th is amount t o a “he ar i ng” f orthe purpos e of d eterm ining w h ethe r Cook appl i es ? To rul e otherw i s e w oul d be t o l i m i tthe appl i cat i on of § 11- 51- 75 .
. . . ” Falco , 8 3 6 S o . 2 d at 71 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ). C lea rly this C o u rt ’s
co n side rati o n w as li m it ed to the ap p lica b le fa cts o f Falco , i
. e. , the ac t i ons of the B oar d,
w h ich th e n ra ise d th e v e ry iss u e b e in g c o n sid e re d o n a p p e a l. ¶26
. T he m aj ori ty then ci t es Ma lo n e v. L e a k e Co u n ty B d . o f S u p e r v is o rs, 841 So. 2d 141, 1 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ) for the p rop o sit ion that “su ffi cien t evid e n c e o f ‘he aring ’ th rou g h B o ard
m in u tes d isc u ss in g su b

jec t co n tra c t, he a rin g re g a rd in g q u a lifica tio n s o f b id d e rs, m o tio n to
aw ard contr act , and unani m ous vot e. ” ( M aj
. O p. ¶ 10)
. I n Malone , this C o u rtex p licitly f ound thatthe “Boar d held a hear i ng on O ct ober16, 200 0, r egar di ng the qual i f i cat i ons of M al one and Car thage A m bul ance Ser vi ce. ” See Malone , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 4 (e m p h a sis added)
. T her e al s o w as no i nt ervent i on i s s ue i n Malone . ¶2 7
. In th e ins tant ca se, th e C ity m e re ly iss u e d a R e q u e st f o r P ro p o sals, w h ich w ere eval uat ed by the C i ty of J acks on D epart m ento f Pu bli c W or ks
. T her e w as no hear i ng. T h e re fo re , a d e n o v o re v ie w is p ro p e r. See Co o kv. B d . o f S u p e rv iso rs o

f L o w n de s C o u n ty , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 9 3 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); Malone v. L eak e C ou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 841 So. 2d 1 4 1 , 1 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ); Falco L im e, Inc. v. Mayo r & A lderm en of Cit y of V i cksbu rg , 836 So. 2d 711, 717- 18 ( M i s s . 2002) ; and N e w e ll v. J

o n e s C o u n ty , 7 31 S o. 2 d 58 0, 58 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ).

### 17

¶ 2 8
. N o tw ith sta n d in g th e a p p lic a b ility o f a d e n o v o sta n d a rd , this C o u rt’s d e c isio n in C um m ings i s cons i s t entw i th t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. ¶29. T he “O r derA dopt i ng the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e” doe s s t at e: ( 1) thatthe M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e P roc edur e i n the f or m att ache d her et o be, and her eby ar e, adopt ed as rul es governi ng al l pr ocee di ngs i n the M i ssi s s i ppi Supr eme C our tand the C our tof A ppeal s of

the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , and the tr i al court s of thi s St at e t o the ex t ent

pr ovi ded i n the Rul es .

. . . M iss. R
. A p p . P
. O rde r (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶30
. H ow ever, R ule 1 speci fi cal l y st at es:

T hes e rules govern pr ocedur e i n appea l s t o the Supr eme C our tof M i s s i s s i ppi and the C our tof A ppeal s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , and pr ocee di ngs on pet i t i ons f orw r i t s orotherre l i ef

w hi ch the Supr eme C our tor the C o u rto f A p p ea ls o r a j u sti ce of th e S u p rem e C o u rto r j u d g e o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls is e m p o w e re d to g ra n t. W hen thes e r ul es pr ovi de f orthe m aki ng of a m ot i on i n the tr i alcourt , the proc edur e f

orm aki ng s uch m ot i on s hall be in acco rdan ce w ith th e practice of t h e trial court
. M i ss. R
. A pp . P
. 1 (em ph asi s added ). T he co m m ent t o R ule 1 f urther cl ari fi es: R ules w hich provide f

or the m aking of a m oti on i n the tri al court i n c l u d e R u l e s 4 (

g ) , ex t e n s i o n o

f t i me t o a p p e a l; 6, d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f i n f o r ma pauper is s tat us ; 8(

b) , s tay on appeal

t o be f i rs ts ought

i n t r i alcourt; and 10(

e) c o r r e c tio n o

f r e c o r d o n a p p e a l. Tr ial

c our t practi c e is go v e r ne d b y the Missi ssi pp iR u les of Ci vil

P rocedu re, Mis s is s i

ppiRul es of

E vi dence , a p p l i c a b l e u n i

f o r m r u l e s , a n d

lo c a lr u l e s wh e r e a d o

p t e d p u rs u a n tt o M
. R. C. P. 8 3
. T h e term “tr ial cou rt ” in th ese rules in clu des a cir cu it or ch an cery cou rt sittin g a s an ap

pell ate court. M iss. R
. A p p . P
. 1 cm t. (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 3 1
. T h e ter m “ trial c o u rt” a s u se d in th e R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re in c lu d e s a c irc u it
courts i t t i ng as an appe l l at e court . C l ear l y, the R ul es of A ppel l at e Proc edur e al s o re qui r e the appl i cat i on of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e t o a ci r cui tcourts i t t i ng as an

### 18

appel l at e court . T her ef or e, the maj or i ty’ s att empt t o excl ude the appl i cat i on of t he M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re i s erroneou s. ¶32. M or eover , even i f the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e di d notappl y and onl y the R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e w er e contr ol l i ng, the maj or i ty’ s f i ndi ng s t i l l w ou l d be
err oneous . R ul e 29 addr es s es onl y l eave to f i l e an a m i cus br i ef

and i n no w ay l i m i t s r el i ef
s oughtf r om a n a ppel l at e courtthr ough a mot i on t o i nt ervene f i l ed pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 2 7
. See M i s s . R
. A pp. P. 27. Fur ther , thi s C our thas t he authori ty to “suspend the requ i rem ents or provi si on s of an y of t hese rules i n a p art i cularcase
o n a p p lic a tio n o f a p a rt y o r o n it s o w n m o ti o n ” p u rs u a n t to R u le 2
. See M i s s . R. A pp . P. 2 (c). ¶33. T he hol di ngs i n C um m ings, Cooper , and G ates v. U ni on N aval Stor es Co. , 92 M i ss. 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 , 4 5 S o . 9 7 9 (1 9 0 8 ), als o a re su p p o rte d b y o th e r a u th o rity , w h ich th e m a jo rity att empt s t o di s t i ngui s h by vi r tue of a n i nt ervent i on pr ovi s i on i n the Feder al R ul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re . (M a j. O p . a t n. 2 ). H o w e v e r, th e m a jo rity ’s a ttem p ted d istin c tio n fa ils beca us e, as s etoutpr evi ous l y he r ei n, thi s Courtha s f ound thatthe i nt ervent i on pr ovi s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e i s cl ear l y appl i cabl e i n pos t - M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A pp el l at e P rocedu re m at t ers . ¶3 4. T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppe a l s f

orthe Fi f

th Ci r cui thas s ai d t hat ei t her i nterven t i on or a m i cus cur i ae s t atus i s an ava i l abl e opt i on. I n Bush v. Vi te r na , 7 40 F. 2d 350, 359 ( 5th C i r . 1984) , t he Fi f th C i r cui tC our tf

ound i nt ervent i on by r i ghtw as not appr opr i at e becau se t he i nt ervenor ’ s i nt er es t s w er e ade quat el y r epr es ent ed by an e xi s t i ng p a rty . H o w e v e r, w ith re g a rd to p e rm iss iv e in ter v e n tio n , the c o u rt sa id , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

### 19 I n act i ng on a reques tf orperm i s s i ve i nt ervent i on, i ti s pr operf orthe courtt o cons i derthe f

actthatthe A s s oci at i on has bee n gr ant ed ami cus cur i ae s t atus i n thi s cas e. [ C i t at i on o m i t t ed]
. I ndeed, thi s s eems t o be the very type of cas e envi s i oned by Judge W yzans ki i n Cr os by Steam G age & V alve Co. v. Ma n n in g

, Max w e ll & Mo o r e, I

n c ., 5 1 F
. S u p p . 9 7 2 , 9 7 3 (D
. M ass. 19 4 3 ), w hen he s t at ed:

Iti s easy eno ug h to see w hat ar e t he argu m ents against i nt ervent i on w her e, as her e, the i nt ervenorm er el y under l i nes i s s ues of l aw al r eady r ai s ed by t he pr i m ary part i es . A ddi t i onal part i es al w ays t ake a ddi t i onal t i m e. E ven i f they have no w i tnes s es of

t hei row n, they ar e the s our ce of addi t i onal q u e stio n s, b rie fs, a rg u m e n ts, m o tio n s a n d th e lik e w h ich ten d to m ake the pr ocee di ng a D onnybr ook F ai r . W her e he pr es ent s no new qu est i on s, a t hir d p arty can con tri bu te usu al l y m ost ef f ect i vel y and al w ays m os texpedi t i ous l y by a br i ef ami cus cur i ae a nd notby i nt ervent i on. W e bel i eve that , i n a case s uch as thi s , the pos i t i on of ami cus , w hi ch the A ss o c iatio n a lre a d y p o ss e ss e s, is m o re a p p ro p ria te th a n a n in ter v e n tio n w ith ful l -par ty st atus. In su m , as to p erm issi v e interv en ti o n , w e d o n o t f ind an y ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s i n thi s cas e as w oul d j us t i f y ourd et erm i ning thatthe di s tr i ct courtcl ear l y abus ed i t s di s cr et i on. W e ac cor di ngl y di s m i s s thi s por t i on of the a p p e a l. Id . a t 3 5 9
. ¶35. I n State of

T exa s v. U

. S. D ep’t of E ner gy , 7 5 4 F
. 2 d 5 5 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ), th e F ifth C i r cui tf ound thatappel l at e i nt ervent i on w as notappr opr i at e “be caus e the ut i l i t i es have no cl ai m ordef

ens e i nvol vi ng comm on ques t i ons of l aw orf

actw i t h t hos e i n the ongoi ng pr ocee di ng as r equi r ed by the rul e. ” Id
. at55 3. H ow ever, the co urtfur ther f ou nd as f oll ow s: T he ut i l i t i es m ay se ek t o pr es entthei rvi ew s as ami cus cur i ae, and l eave t o do s o i s her e gr ant ed. A s t hi s courtnot ed i n Bush v. Vi te r na , 740 F. 2d 350, 359 ( 5th C i r . 1984) , “w hen he pr es ent s no new ques t i ons , a thi rd party can contr i but e us ual l y m os te f f ect i vel y a nd a l w ays moste xpedi t i ous l y by a br i ef a m ic u s c u ri a e a n d n o t b y in te rv e n tio n .”

### 20

State of T exas v. U . S. D ep’t of E ner gy , 7 5 4 F . 2 d a t 5 5 3
. See al s o I ngebr et s en v. Jacks on P u b lic S c h . D ist. , 8 6 4 F
. S u p p . 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 8 4 -85 (S
. D
. M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). ¶36. T her ef

or e, i t i s appr opr i at e t o cons i der w hether J W P s houl d be al l ow ed t o i nt ervene by r i ghtorby perm i s s i on. ¶37. J W P’ s appl i cat i on w as t i m el y. J W P w as aw ar ded t he contr actati s s ue and cl ear l y has

“ a n in te re s t r e la tin g to th e p ro p e rt y o r t ra n s a c ti o n w h ic h is th e s u b je c t o f t h e a p p e a l.” Cooper , 511 So. 2d at923. JW P i s f ur ther“s o s i tuat ed thatdi s pos i t i on of the appe al m ay as a pr act i cal m att eri m pai ror i m pede hi s abi l i ty t o prot ecthi s i nt er es t . ” Id
. T h e so le is su e to b e re s o lv e d is w h e th e r “ th e p a rt y ’s in te re s t is a d e q u a te ly re p re s e n te d b y th e e x is tin g p a rt y .” Id
. ¶3 8. J W P ha s a n i nt e r e s t tha t i s no t a de qu a t e l y pr ot e c t e d by the Ci ty. W hi l e the Ci ty of Jackson and JW P m ay h ave o verl app i ng i nter est s, they a l so cl earl y h ave sep arat e i nter est s. C om m on s ens e di ct at es thatthe C i ty mer el y has an i nt er es ti n aw ar di ng the contr actt o t he l ow es tand bes tbi dderand ens ur i ng the f ul f i l l m entof

the con t ractby w hoeverthatbi dder
m ay b e. JW P h as p rop ri etary an d fi n an cial i n terests i n b eing aw ard ed the c o n tr ac t. F u rth er, th e m a jo rity fa ils to e x p lain th e a p p ro p ri a te c o u rse o f a c tio n JW P w o u ld n e e d to tak e if U ni t ed W at erSer vi ces s houl d pr evai l i n i t s under l yi ng act i on. Pr es um abl y J W P w oul d then need t o f

i l e a s epar at e law sui tchal l engi ng the aw ar d of the contr actt o U ni t ed W at er S e rv ice s. In a n y ev e n t, JW P w o u ld b e p lac e d a t a s u b sta n tial d isa d v a n tag e in p ro tec tin g its leg iti m a te in ter e sts if n o t allo w e d to p a rticip a te in the se p ro c e e d in g s re g a rd in g its c o n tra c t. ¶39. T hi s C our ti n Madis on H M A , I nc. v. St . D om ini c-Jacks on Mem ’l Hos p. , 35 So. 3d 1209, 1215 ( M i s s . 2010) , cl ar i f i ed thata tr i al courthas l i t t l e, if an y, di s cr et i on i n s uch an

### 21

act i on, a nd the n r e ve r s e d a c ha nc e l l or ’ s de ni a l of a mot i on t o i nt e r ve ne by a s e c ond p ro sp e c tiv e b u y e r in a n a c tio n b y a first p ro sp e c tiv e b u y e r to e n fo rc e a p u rc h a se a g re e m e n t. Ma dis o n H

MA , 35 So. 3d at1214. Y ether e, t he maj or i ty f i nds thatan ac tual party t o a contr acts houl d notbe a l l ow ed t o i nt ervene. T hos e r es ul t s ar e i ncons i s t ent . I f the put at i ve i nt ervenori n Ma dis o n H MA w as al l ow ed t o i nt ervene i n a ca s e w her e i thad no contr actand
n o a w a rd o f a b id , th e n su re ly th e p u tativ e in ter v e n o r in th is c a se sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to i nt ervene as a m att erof r i ght
. U nl i ke t he put at i ve i nt ervenori n Ma dis o n H MA , J W P has a demonstr abl e and ge nui ne “i nt er es tr el at ed t o the pr operty ortr ans act i on. ” B as ed on the
r ecor d i n thi s mat t er , I w oul d f i nd thatthe r equi r ement s nece s s ary t o es t abl i s h i nt ervent i on of r i ghthave be en metand thatthe ci r cui tcourtdeci s i on t o deny the mot i on t o i nt ervene
m us tbe r ever s ed. ¶ 4 0
. H o w e v e r, ev e n if JW P d id n o t m e e t th e req u ire m e n ts fo r in te rv e n tio n b y ri g h t, it
s houl d notbe exc l uded f r om the ac t i on i nvol vi ng a contr actw hi ch i tw as a w ar ded. U nder th e a u th o rity c ited h e re in , itsh o u ld b e a llo w e d p e rm iss iv e in ter v e n tio n o r, a t th e v e ry lea st, be g rant ed am i cus curi ae st atus. ¶41. B eca us e I w oul d fi nd t hatthe r equi r ement s nece s s ary t o es t abl i s h i nt ervent i on of r i ght h a v e b e e n m e t, I w o u ld re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e c irc u it c o u rt. T h e re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. K I T C H E N S , J ., J O I N S T H I S O P I N I O N .