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 - I A- 0 1 5 1 3 - S CT TH E C AR L R O N

N I E D AR ICEK L I VING TR U ST
v. HANCO CK COUNTY, M I S S I S S I PP I , ACT I NG BY AND THROU GH

I TSBOARD OF S UPERV I S ORS AND THE H

ANCOCK COUNTY ROAD P RO T EC T ION C OM

M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 31/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAW RENCE P AUL BOURGEOI S , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HAN COCK COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: VI RG I L G. GI LLES PI E ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: KARL CRAW F ORD HI GHTOW ER NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CO NS T I T UT I ONAL I T Y OF S T A T U T E , E M IN E N T D O M A IN D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 05/ 13/ 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: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 9 - I A- 0 1 5 1 4 - S CT ER N ES T B E C K EM E Y ER , III
v. HANCO CK COUNTY, M I S S I S S I PP I , ACT I NG BY AND THROU GH

I TSBOARD OF S UPERV I S ORS AND THE H

ANCOCK COUNTY ROAD P RO T EC T ION C OM

M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 31/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAW RENCE P AUL BOURGEOI S , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HAN COCK COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: VI RG I L G. GI LLES PI E ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: KARL CRAW F ORD HI GHTOW ER

### Th e cases differ o nlyin th e n ames o f th e ap pellants, th e lo cation s of th e pro perties, 1 

### andthe sizes o f the easements sou ght. 2 NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CO NS T I T UT I ONAL I T Y OF S T A T U T E , E M IN E N T D O M A IN D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 05/ 13/ 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: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 9 - I A- 0 1 5 1 5 - S CT L I S A K . FIT CH, S

AN DRA K . GOODWI

N A ND ANN K. ENGLEHORN
v. HANCO CK COUNTY, M I S S I S S I PP I , ACT I NG BY AND THROU GH

I TSBOARD OF S UPERV I S ORS AND THE H

ANCOCK COUNTY ROAD P RO T EC T ION C OM

M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 31/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAW RENCE P AUL BOURGEOI S , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HAN COCK COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: VI RG I L G. GI LLES PI E ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE E: KARL CRAW F ORD HI GHTOW ER NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - CO NS T I T UT I ONAL I T Y OF S T A T U T E , E M IN E N T D O M A IN D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 05/ 13/ 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 . T h e th re e c o n so lid a ted c a se s a re n e a rly id e n tica l. L an d o w n ers a ssert i n th is 1 i nt er l ocut ory appea l thatthe s t atut e us ed by H ancoc k Count y t o c ondemn t hei rpr operty f or a t empora ry cons t ruct i on eas ementi s uncons t i tut i onal , orhas been r epea l ed and/ or

### 3

su p e rse d e d b y a s u b se q u e n t sta tu te. T h e la n d o w n e rs se e k a re m a n d to th e H a n c o c k C o u n ty B o a rd o f S u p e rv iso rs to b e g in p ro c e e d in g s “a n e w .” W e aff irm the d e c isio n o f th e c irc u it
cou rtand rem and the m at t er t o thatcou rtfora j ury t ri al , i f r equ est ed b y the l and ow ners.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . H u rric a n e K a trina sev ere ly da m ag ed th e sea w all pro tecting B e a c h B o u lev a rd in dow nt ow n B ay Sai ntL oui s . O nl y batt er ed, i nt erm i t t ents ect i ons r emai n. The U
. S. C orps of E ng i neers ( “C orps”) off ered t o rebui l d the seaw al l f or H anco ck C ou nty usi ng feder al funds, ata n e s t i m at ed cos tof

$33, 000, 000. T he pl anned s eaw al l w i l l be s l i ght l y s eaw ar d f r om the form er on e an d w il l be lo ca ted o n land alread y o w n ed b y the S tat e (p u b li c-trust t idelan d s). See P arks v. Sim

ps on , 2 4 2 M iss
. 8 9 4 , 9 0 2 , 1 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 -3 9 (1 9 6 2 ). T h e s e a w a ll pr oj ectr equi r es eas ement s f r om l andow ner s . S om e perm anenteas ement s ar e r equi r ed f or acc es s , dr ai nage, m ai nt enanc e, and othe rpu rpo s e s . A l s o r e qu i r e d ar e t empora ry cons truct i on ea sem en ts, w h ich w il l r ev ert t o the o w n ers. T h e e a se m e n ts at i ssu e a re fo r t em p o rary cons truct i on, nott o excee d t hi r ty- s i x m onths , and i nvol ve s m al l par cel s ( D ar i cek, 0. 14 acr e; B e c k e m e y e r, 0 .1 1 a c re ; F itc h , .0 0 4 a c re ). ¶3 . F rom th e b eg inn in g o f th is p rojec t, th e H a n c o c k C o u n ty B o a rd o f S u p erv isors (“ b o a rd ” ) fo llo w e d th e s ta tu to ry p ro c e d u re s o f th e S e a w a ll A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 65- 33- 1 t o 65- 33- 71 ( R ev. 2005)
. I n acc or dance w i th thats t atut e, the boar d cert i fi ed t o the governorthata s eaw al l w as nece s s ary t o pr ot ectB eac h B ou l evard. T he governorthen appoi nt ed fi ve m ember s t o the H ancoc k C ounty R oad Pr ot ect i on C om m i s s i on (“ c o m m is s io n ” ). See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -33 -27 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ).

### Othe rs at te nding we rea c ommis si on me mbe r, the county tax as se ss or, the c hanc er y 2 

### cl er k, and Corps per sonne l (proj ec t m ana ger , a cqui si ti on age nt, and a property apprai se r)
. 4 ¶4 . T h e fi rsta ttem p t t o o b tai n the n ec essa ry tem p o rary e ase m en ts from the land o w n ers
w as vi a a l ett erf

r om the C orps i n A ugus t2008, f ol l ow ed by a s econd l ett eri n February 2009. E ncl os ed w i th t he l ett er s w er e eas ementagre ement s . A l l of the af f ect ed ow ner s , exce ptthe thr ee appel l ant s , agr eed t o the ea s ement s . T he D ar i cek pr operty and the B ecke m eyer property are on ei ther s i de of r ai l road tracks that run eastand w estthroug h B ay S ai nt Lo uis
. T he F i t ch p roperty is l ocated several l ots aw ay fr om the p roperty o f the othertw o ap pell ants . ¶5 . A l t hough t he ow ner s now ar gu e tha tthe bo a r d n e ve rne go t i a t e d wi th the m , t hey
co n ce d ed at a h ea ri n g that the C o rps h ad n eg o ti ated w ith the m w h en the o ri g inal let ters w ere s ent . T he ow ner s w er e unw i l l i ng t o gra ntt he eas ement s w i thoutcompensa t i on. T he C orps count er ed thatl ack of

compensa t i on w as j us t i f i ed bec aus e of

the expe ct ed i ncr eas e i n the
v a lu e o f t h e c o n d e m n e e s ’ p ro p e rt y a ft e r t h e c o n s tru c tio n o f t h e n e w s e a w a ll. ¶ 6 . T h e b o a rd p ro c e e d e d to c o n d e m n th e p ro p e rt y u n d e r t h e S e a w a ll A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 23 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he comm i s s i on publ i s hed not i ce of the conde m nat i on i n a new s paperi n H ancoc k C ounty. T he not i ce l i s t ed the thr ee l andow ner s by name. A l l thr ee la n d o w n e rs re s p o n d e d w ith c la im s fo r c o m p e n s a tio n a s p ro v id e d fo r i n th e s ta tu te . See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 65-33- 31 (Rev. 2005). T he boar d r es ponded by s endi ng l ett er s ( m ai l ed M ay 27, 2009) t o the l andow ner s , i nf or m i ng t hem thatt he boar d w oul d vi s i tt he pr opert i es on June 8, 20 09 , t o assess the d am ages cl ai m ed b y the ow ners. O n thatdate, a team of apprai ser s, i ncl udi ng a mem berof

the boar d, vi s i t ed the pr opert i es , butthe ow ner s di d notatt end. 2

### 5

¶ 7 . F o llo w in g th e s ite a s s e s s m e n t, th e b o a rd p a s s e d a t its m e e tin g o n J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , a se a w a ll res o lu tio n , d e n y in g th e c laim s o f th e th re e o w n e rs. T h e re so lu tio n w a s e n ter e d in to the mi nut es of

the boar d’ s m eet i ng, and a c opy of the mi nut es w as cert i f

i ed as a true copy by the C l erk of

the B oar d of

Sup ervi s or s . A l l f

i ve boar d m ember s w er e l i s t ed by name as h a v in g v o ted in fa v o r o f th e re so lu tio n , w h ich c a lled fo r th e tak in g o f th e p ro p e rty . T h e b a sis forthe b oard’s decis i on w as det ai l ed in the resol uti on , as f oll ow s: T h e b en efitco n ferred u p o n the p rop erty o w n er b y ere cti o n o f th e S ea w all e x c e e d s, in ter m s o f v a lu e , a n y d a m a g e tha t m a y b e inc u rre d b y [th e p ro p e rty o w n e r], a n d th e re fo re , the p ro p e rty . . . w ill h a v e a n e n h a n c e d v a lu e a s a re su lt of the er ect i on of

the Seaw al l
. A s s uch, the B oar d f i nds thatj us tcompensa t i on f orthi s cl ai m i s $0. 00. T he B oard furt her f i nds thati ti s ent i t l ed t o of f s et damages i ncurr ed by the l andow nerw i t h t he val ue of the enha ncement conf err ed upon the l andow nerby compl et i on of the Proj ect , as the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tus i ng enhanc ementas an of f s eti s f ound i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed § 1 1 -2 7 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ), a n d th e p ro c e d u re b e in g e m p lo y e d b y th e B o a rd b y th is in sta n c e is se t fo rth in M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d § 6 5 -3 3 -1 , et s e q ., w h e re in no s uch pr ohi bi t i on i s f ound. ¶8. T he l andow ner s appea l ed t o the C i r cui t C our t of H anco ck C ounty by s ubm i t t i ng a Sugges t ed B i l l of

E xcept i ons undert he s t atut e appl yi ng gener al l y t o appea l s f r om the d e c is io n s o f m u n ic ip a l a u th o ri tie s . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -51 -75 (R ev . 20 0 2 ). T h e b o ard req u ested that the c o u n ty’s ac ti o n s b e a ffi rm ed
. T h e b o ard su b m itted th at i ts acti o n s w ere pr operunderthe Seaw al l A ctand thatthe l andow ner s ’ r i ghtt o a n a ppeal w as pr ovi ded f or s p e c if ic a lly in th e S e a w a ll A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 33 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he lan d o w n e rs r e sp o n d ed b y a rg u in g th a t (1 ) th e S e a w a ll A c t is u n c o n stitu tio n a l; (2 ) th e S e a w a ll A ct w as re p ea led o r sup erse d ed b y the R ea l Pro p erty A cq u isi ti o n P o li cies A ct (“R P A P A ”); (3) the m anneri n w hi ch the pr operty w as condemned had r es ul t ed i n an uncons t i tut i onal t aki ng; ( 4) the manneri n w hi ch the pr operty w as c ondemned w as noti n compl i ance w i th the

### 6

pr oced ur a l r e qu i r e ment s of the Se a w a l l A c torthe RPA PA ; a nd ( 5) the bo a r d h a d vi ol at ed t he s epa r a t e Emi ne ntDom a i n A c t ’ s p r oh i bi t i on o f u s i ng e nh a nc e menta s a n of f s e tt o a c o m p e n s a tio n a m o u n t. See M i ss. C od e A n n . §§ 43 -37-1 t o 4 3-37-13 (R ev. 20 09 ); M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -2 7 -2 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶9. I n A ugus t2009, the ci r cui tcourthear d ar gum ent s and i s s ued an or dera f f i r m i ng the act i ons of

t he boar d. T he ci r cui tcour thel d that“[ t ] he i s s ue of damages , how ever , s hal l be
r evi s i t ed and, i f

nece s s ary, s ubj ectt o a j ury tr i al i n or dert o det erm i ne t he am ou ntof
co mpen s a t i on tha t[ the l a nd owner s a r e ] o w e d. ” Rega r di ng the c on s t i tut i on a l i ty of t he S e a w a ll A c t an d th e tak in g , the c irc u it co u rt fo u n d th a t th e lan d o w n e rs’ d u e -p ro c e ss rig h ts had notbeen vi ol at ed, as the l andow ner s had not i ce a nd an opportuni ty t o be hea r d, by w ay of: ( 1) the new s papernot i ce, ( 2) the cl ai m t o t he boar d, ( 3) the ac tual not i ce of as s es s m ent vi s i t , and ( 4) the r i ghtt o acc om pany the appr ai s er s . Regar di ng the R PA PA ’ s e f f ecton the Seaw al l A ct , the ci r cui tcourtagr eed thatboth s t atut es appl i ed, and thatboth had bee n f ol l ow e d by the Boa r d. U nd e rthe RPA PA , the c i r c ui tc ou r tf ou nd tha tthe Boa r d had ( 1) negot i at ed w i th the l andow ner s ( vi a the C orps ) ; (2) appr ai s ed the l and vi a the s i t e- as s es s m ent vi s i t ; (3) submi t t ed a w r i t t en s t at ement( the boar d’ s r es ol ut i on) t o the l andow ner s des cr i bi ng the bas i s on w hich t he compens at i on had bee n det erm i ned; and ( 4) i ni t i at ed a f or m al
co n d em n ati o n h ea ri n g (bo ard m ee ti n g ) w h en i t bec am e n ec essa ry to ac q u ir e the tem p o rary eas ement s thr ough emi nentdom ai n. U nderthe Seaw al l A ct , the ci r cui tcourtf ound thatthe boar d had pr ovi ded the l and ow ner s due and l egal not i ce. T he new s papercondemnat i on
n o tice an d th e n o ti ce of th e ass essm en t v isi t h ad i n form ed th e lan d o w n ers o f th eir rig h t to
m ake a cl ai m and t o acc om pany the app rai s er s . T he ci r cui tcourtf ound that , i f

the

### The l andowne rs rais e the c ompe nsati on am ount a s an is sue . Howe ver , our holding 3 

### is that c ompe nsati on ve l non and the le galiss ues sur rounding dam age s s hould becons ide re d at a j ury tri al , i f reque st ed, upon re mand. Thus, dam age s are not disc uss ed s eparate ly, but wil l bedis cus se d only a s they rel at e to othe r is sue s. The landowner s rais e is sue s ( attor ney fe es, costs, and expens es ) in thi s a ppea l t hat were not brought bel ow, and that arenot pleaded f or in thepetition f

or inte rl ocut ory a

ppea l. Thus, the seis sue s areproc edurally bar re d. 7 l andow ner s des i r e a j ury tr i al on the i s s ue of damages , the Seaw al l A ctent i t l es them t o s uch
a tr ia l. See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -3 3 -3 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, d a m a g e s, if a n y , u lti m a tely
w oul d be det erm i ned by a j ury. ¶10. T he l andow ner s pet i t i oned thi s C our tforan i nt er l ocut ory appea l , w hi ch w as gr ant ed. T hi s C our tf

ound thatthe appe al s houl d be expe di t ed and i nvi t ed the M i ssi ssi ppi A t t orney G ener al t o f

i l e an am i cus cur i ae b ri e f. I S S UES ¶11 . T he is sues are as fol l ow s: 3 I. W h e th e r th e S e a w a ll A c t is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. I I . W hetherthe Seaw al l A ctha s been r epea l ed ors uper s eded by the R e a l P ro p e rty A c q u isitio n P o licie s A c t. I I I . W hetherthe co unty compl i ed w i th al l cons t i tut i onal and s t atut ory r equi r ement s i n condemni ng the pr operty. IV . W h e th e r it w a s e rro r to fin d th a t th e la n d o w n e rs a re e n tit led to a j ury tr i al , or w hetherthe mat t ers houl d be r emanded t o the B oar d o f Super vi s or s t o s t artanew undera s epar at e Em i nent D om ai n s t atut e and/ orthe R eal Pr operty A cqui s i t i on Pol i ci es A c t. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW

### 8

¶1 2 . “ A ‘v e ry h e a v y b u rd e n ’ re sts u p o n th is C o u rt b e fo re it m a y fin d a sta tu te
uncons t i tut i onal
. ” S ta te v . B d . o f L e v e e Co m m 'rs fo r Y a zo o -Miss . D e lta , 932 So. 2d 12, 19 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng Mo o re v. B d . o f S u p e rv iso rs o

f Hin d s C o u n ty , 658 So. 2d 883, 887 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. T he B oa rd of L evee Com m ission ers C o u rt c o n tin u e d a s fo llo w s: “[ I] tbehooves us t o r eca l l thatthe cha l l enged a cthas been pa s s ed by l e g i s l a t o r s a n d a p p r o v e d b y a g o v e rn o rs wo rn t o u p h o l d th e s e l f s a me cons t i tut i on as ar e w e. ” S tate v. R oder i ck , 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 4 9 , 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). T her ef or e, “underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw a party chal l engi ng the cons t i tut i onal i ty of a s t atut e mustpr ove uncons t i tut i onal i ty be yond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” Cities of Ox fo rd , Ca rth ag e, S ta rk v ille a n d T u p elo v . N o rthe a st E lec . P o w e r A ss 'n , 704 S o. 2d 59, 65 ( M i s s . 1997)
. I n otherw or ds : one w ho as s ai l s a l egi s l at i ve enac t m entm us tovercom e the s tr ong pr es um pt i on of val i di ty and s uch a ss a ilan t m u st p ro v e h is c o n c lu sio n s a ffirm a tiv e ly , an d c lea rly e sta b lish it beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A l l doubt s m us tbe r es ol ved i n f avorof val i di ty of a s t atut e. I f

possi ble, a cour ts houl d cons true s t atut es s o as t o r enderthem cons t i tut i onal r atherthan uncons t i tut i onal i f t he st atut e underat t ack does not c lea rly a n d ap p a re n tly co n flict w ith o rg a n ic la w afte r first re so lv in g a ll d o u b ts i n f avorof val i di ty. B d. of L evee Com m 'rs , 932 So. 2d at19- 20 (c i t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he otheri s s ues , i ncl udi ng the cons truct i on and appl i cat i on of s t atut es cl ai m ed t o be i n conf l i ct , are l egal que s t i ons s u b je c t to d e n o v o re v ie w . See Aladdin Cons tr. Co. , I nc . v. J ohn H anc oc k Li

f e I ns. Co. , 9 1 4 S o . 2 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). DI S CU S S I ON I. W h e th e r th e S e a w a ll A c t is u n c o n stitu tio n a l. ¶13. T he l andow ner s ar gue the f ol l ow i ng: [ T ] he Seaw al l A ct. . . cannotbe appl i ed w i thoutvi ol at i ng the C ons t i tut i on of the S t at e of M i ssi ssi pp i and
. . . of the U nit ed S t at es of A m eri ca. T he p rocess of condemni ng pr i vat e pr operty i s a j udi ci al func t i on ra thert han a l egi s l at i ve f unct i on and the Seaw al l A ctdoes notr ecogni ze thi s s epar at i on of pow er s and i t s i m pl ement at i on cannotbe carr i ed outw i thoutvi ol at i ng the C ons t i tut i onal

### 9

m an d ate a n d w ith o u t violati n g d u e p roc ess o f l aw . T h ere fore
. . . the C o u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r d e c lar in g th e se S e c tio n s o f th e C o d e u n c o n stitu tio n a l. The l a nd owner s c i t e the Fi f th a nd Fo urt e e nth A mend ment s t o the U. S. Cons t i tut i on a nd A rt i cl e Thre e, Sect i ons Four t een, Sevent een a nd T w enty- f ourof the M i s s i s s i ppi C on st i tut i on. See U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V , X IV ; M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § § 1 4 , 1 7 , 2 4 . T h e F o u rte e n th A m endmentt o the U
. S. C ons t i tut i on and Sect i on Four t een of the M i s s i s s i ppi C onst i tut i on p ro h ib it d e p ri v a tio n o f p ro p e rt y w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f l a w . See U. S
. Co n s t . a me n d
. XI V; M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 1 4 . See a l so N at’l Co lleg iate A th leti c A ss' n v. G il lard , 352 So. 2d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 7 7 ); W alters v. B lackledge , 220 M i s s . 485, 515, 71 So. 2d 433, 444 ( 1954)
. T he Fi f

th A m endmentt o the U
. S. C ons t i tut i on has a s i m i l arpr ohi bi t i on and r equi r es the paymentof

“j us tcompensa t i on. ” See U . S. C ons t . amend. V . S ect i on S event een of the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on fol l ow s: Pr i vat e pr operty s hal l notbe t aken ordamaged f orpubl i c us e, exce pton due c o m p e n sa tio n b e in g firs t m a d e to th e o w n e r o r o w n e rs th e re o f, in a m a n n e r to b e p re sc rib e d b y law ; an d w h e n e v e r a n a ttem p t is m a d e to tak e p riv a te pr operty f

ora us e al l eged t o be publ i c, the ques t i on w hetherthe cont empl at ed us e be publ i c s hal l be a j udi ci al q uest i on, and, as s uch, det erm i ned w i thout r egar d t o l egi s l at i ve as s ert i on thatthe us e i s publ i c. M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 1 7 . S e c tio n T w e n ty -fo u r o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n fo llo w s: “ A ll
court s s hal l be ope n; a nd e very pe r s on f oran i nj ury done hi m i n hi s l ands , goods , per s on, or
r e pu t a t i on , s ha l l h a ve r e medy b y du e c ou r s e o f l a w , a nd r i gh ta nd j us t i c e s hal l be
a d m in is te re d w ith o u t s a le , d e n ia l, o r d e la y .” M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 2 4 . ¶14. T he M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e, fol l ow i ng i t s const i tut i onal m andat e t o pre s cr i be by l aw the manneri n w hi ch pr i vat e pr operty, w hi ch ext ends “al ong the bea ch ors hor e of any body
o f tid e w a te r,” m a y b e ta k e n fo r p u b lic u s e , e n a c te d th e S e a w a ll A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn.

### 10

§ 65- 33- 1 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he Legi s l atur e devot ed an e nt i re chapt erof thi r ty- s i x s ect i ons of the M i s s i ssi ppi C ode t o the Seaw al l A ct . I tpr ovi des a mechani s m f ora county, act i ng th ro u g h its b o a rd o f su p e rv iso rs, to fin a n c e , ac q u ire p ro p e rty fo r, an d c o n stru c t a s e a w a ll
w h e n n e c e s s a ry . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 65- 33- 1 t o 65- 33- 71 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he s t atut e w as first e n a c ted in 1 9 2 4 . T h e ac t’s first se c tio n g ra n ts a b o a rd o f su p e rv iso rs th e p o w e r to b u ild
a n d m a in ta in a s e a w a ll if n e c e s s a ry to p ro te c t a p u b lic r o a d o r s tr e e t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33-1 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he ac t“cl othe[ s ] ” the boar ds of s upervi s or s “w i th the pow erand
a u th o rity , an d it i s m a d e th e ir d u ty , to e x e rc ise th e rig h t o f e m in e n t d o m a in in o rd e r to pr ocur e the r i ghtof

w ay f ors uch r oads , s tr eet s , hi ghw ays , s ea w al l s . . . and s uch other devi ces as m ay be adopt ed f ort he pr ot ect i on of s uch hi ghw ays . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 23 ( R ev. 2005)
. T hus , the L egi s l atur e f ul f i l l ed i t s c ons t i tut i onal duty t o pr es cr i be by l aw the pow ert o exer ci s e emi nentd om ai n, and i n the s ame st atut e, es t abl i s hed pr ot ect i ons f orthe land o w n er. ¶15 . T he act det ai l s the p rocess as f oll ow s: W heneve ri ts hal l become nece s s ary t o const ruct , w i den, orpr ot ectany h ig h w a y u n d e r th e p ro v isio n s h e re o f, th e ro a d p ro tec tio n c o m m iss io n sh a ll m a k e p u b lica tio n fo r th irty d a y s in so m e n e w sp a p e r p u b lish e d in th e c o u n ty w her ei n s uch i m pr ovement s ar e made, s ett i ng f or th the comm ence m entand t erm i nat i on, w i th a gener al out l i ne of the natur e and e xt entther eof
. W hen any ow nerof l and orot herper s on shal l cl ai m compensa t i on f orl and t aken f

ors uch p u rp o se , o r fo r d a m a g e su sta in e d b y th e c o n stru c tio n , w id e n in g , im p ro v e m e n t, orpr ot ect i on of

s uch r oad orhi ghw ay, he s hal l pet i t i on the boar d of s u p e r v i s o r s i n wr i t i n g wi th i n th i r ty d a y s a f t e rth e e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e t i me pr ovi ded f

ors uch publ i cat i on , sett i ng f or th the natur e and c har act erof the d am ag es c lai m ed
. T h ere u p o n the b o ard sh all , o n fi v e d ay s' no ti ce t o p eti ti o n er, go on the pr emi s es and as s es s the damages s us t ai ned by hi m . T he f i ndi ng of the b oard shall b e in w ri t i ng , si gn ed by the m em bers agreei ng to i t , and m ust be ent er ed on the mi nut es att he nextm eet i ng; buti f t he damages s us t ai ned and

### 11

c l a i me d b e l e s s th a n th e c o s to f a s s e s s i n g , th e b o a r d ma y a l l o w t h e s a me w i thouti nqui ry. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 31 ( R ev. 2005)
. I f a l andow neri s di s s at i s f i ed atthi s j unctur e, the S eaw al l A ctfurther grant s a l and ow ner the ri gh tt o ap peal t o cir cuitcou rt , as f oll ow s: A l l proceedi ngs of

the boar d of

s upervi s or s and the r oad pr ot ect i on comm i s s i on i n . . . pr ot ect i ng any such h i gh w ay and a s s es s i ng damages ther ef orm ay be r evi ew ed by the ci r cui tcourti n r es pectt o any mat t erof l aw ar i s i ng on the face of the pr ocee di ng. O n the ques t i on of dam ages , the case m ay be tr i ed anew and t he dam ages m ay be as s es s ed by a j ury i f the ow nerof t he l a nd s o d e s i r e s . The bo a r d o f s up e r vi s or s s ha l l gr a nta pp e a l s f ortha t purpos e w hen pr ayed f

or , on a ppel l antgi vi ng bond f orcos ti n s uch pena l ty as the boar d m ay r equi r e, notexce edi ng $200. 00, payabl e t o the county. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -3 3 -3 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h u s , if a lan d o w n e r is
a g g rie v e d , h e o r sh e h a s a rem e d y b y d u e co u rse o f law in th e co u rts o f M is s is s ip p i. A l and ow ner di ssat i sf

i ed w i th the ass essm ent of dam ages by t he bo ard has the ri gh tt o reque st a j ury tr i al on the ques t i on of damages
. T hus , the damage as sess m ent i s made by the l andow ner ’ s f

el l ow ci t i zens , notthe conde m ni ng author i ty, the boar d. ¶1 6. T hi s C ou r th a s s t a t e d tha t“ du e p r oc e s s i s f l e xi bl e a nd c al l s f

ors uch pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons as the part i cul ars i tuat i on demands. ” Mis s . B d. of V eter inary Med. v. G eotes , 770 So. 2d 940, 943 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng Mor r is s ey v. B r ew er, 4 0 8 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 1 , 9 2 S . C t. 2593, 2600, 33 L . E d. 2d 484 ( 1972)
. “ ‘ T he f undament al r equi r ementof due pr oces s i s the op po rtun i ty to be he ard ata m eaningful t i m e and i n a m ea n ing ful m ann er. ’ D ue p rocess t heref ore r equi r es thata def

endantbe gi ven ade quat e not i ce. ” V in c e n t v. G riffin , 872 So. 2d 676, 678 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Mathew s v. E ldr idge , 424 U . S. 319, 333, 96 S. C t . 893, 902, 47 L . E d. 2d 18 (1976) ) ( ci t i ng Yo u n gv. Unite d S ta te s e x r e l . Vu itto n e t

Fil s S. A. , 481 U .S . 7 8 7 , 7 9 8 -9 9 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 21 2 4 , 2 1 3 3 , 9 5 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 0 (1 9 8 7 )). T h e S e a w a ll A c t ca lls

### 12

for a thirty-d ay p eriod o f ne w sp ap er n o ti ce s an d then all o w s thirty ad d it ion al da y s for a l andow nert o s ubm i ta cl ai m . T he county then i s r equi r ed t o gi ve f i ve days ’ actual not i ce of
an a s s e s s mentvi s i t . Fol l owi ng the bo a r d’ s f i na l de c i s i on on the l a nd owner ’ s c l a i m, the lan d o w n e r m a y a p p e a l to c irc u it co u rt. ¶1 7 . T h irty-d ay s’ no ti ce is co n sti tuti o n all y su ffi c ien t. In a c o n d e m n a ti o n ca se u n d er a d iffe re n t s tatu te, th is C o u rt fo u n d a tw o -d a y n o tice re q u ire m e n t to b e u n c o n stitu tio n a l. B ra n a m a n v. L o n gB e a c h W a terM g m t. D ist. , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). N onethel es s , the B r anam an Courta f f i r m ed the t aki ng beca us e the cha ncel l orhad gi ven the d e fe n d a n t a d d itio n a l tim e to p r e p a r e fo r t ri a l. I d. a t 1 1 5 1 . In fin d in g th e sta tu te in B ran am an un c on s t i tut i on a l , thi s Cour tde c l a r e d, “ U nt i l s uc h t i me a s the M i s s i s s i ppi L eg isl ature a d d resse s the issu e o f ad eq u ate n o ti ce , the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re
w ill c o n tr o l th e a m o u n t o f n o tic e th a t a la n d o w n e r s h o u ld b e g iv e n a ft e r a c o m p la in t is fi le d .” I d. S u b s e q u e n tly , th e sta tu te w a s a m e n d e d to re q u ir e th ir ty -d a y s ’ n o tic e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 51- 29- 39 ( R ev. 2003)
. I n G eotes , thi s C our thel d thatthi r ty- days ’ not i ce doe s not
v io la te d u e -p ro c e s s ri g h ts . See G eotes , 770 So. 2d at944- 45 ( “Even i f the pr evi ous not i ce
w as notadequa t e, i tw as cur ed by the B oar d l eavi ng the r ecor d open and gi v[ i ng] G eot es thirty d ay s to resp o n d
. ”). ¶1 8. T he Seaw al l A ctcompl i es w i t h t he Ma th e ws s t a nd a r d i n tha ti ta l l ow s f or an “opportuni ty t o be hear d ata meani ngf ul t i m e and i n a meani ngf ul m anner . ” Ma th e ws , 424 U . S. at333. L andow ner s m ay submi ta w r i t t en cl ai m , accompany the as s es s or s , appea l l egal i s s ues t o t he ci r cui tcour t , and re ques ta j ury t r i al on damages
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 33 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ).

### 13

¶19. T his C ou rtu ph el d t he con st i tuti on al i t y of a si m i l ars t atue i n J o ne s v. Be l

z oni D ra in ag e D istric t o

f W a sh in g to n Co u n ty , 102 M i s s . 796, 59 So. 921 ( 1912)
. T he Jones C ou rtdescri bed the st atute as fol l ow s: T h e w h o le m a tter o f n o tice a n d p ro tes t, h e a rin g , a n d d e c isio n is w o rk e d o u t in det ai l , and t he r i ghtof appea l i s car ef

ul l y pr es erved. T he as s es s m entof damages i s pr ovi ded f

ori n [ the s t atut e] ; and, i n s hor t , a mostel abor at e s ys t em to p re se rv e a n d c o n se rv e th e in ter e sts a n d rig h ts o f a ll p a rties c o n c e rn e d is pr es cr i bed by the act . I tthus a ppear s thata l l r eas onabl e gr ounds of compl ai nt on acc ountof

bei ng depr i ved of

due proc es s of

l aw has no f

oundat i on i n f

act o r in law . T h e L e g isla tu re w a s c a re fu l t o inc o rp o ra te th e en tire B ill o f R ig h ts i n the ac t– i f

noti n w or ds , cert ai nl y i n s ubs t ance . I d. a t 9 2 3 . T h e sa m e o b se rv a tio n c o u ld b e m a d e a b o u t th e S e a w a ll A c t. ¶ 2 0 . T h is C o u r t h a s a ff ir m e d th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f t h e S e a w a ll A c t. See He nr it z y v. H a rr iso n Co u n ty , 1 8 0 M iss
. 6 7 5 , 1 7 8 S o . 3 2 2 (1 9 3 8 ); L a dn er v. R o a d P ro t. Co m m ’n , 150 M i s s . 416, 116 So. 602 ( 1928)
. I n L adner , th e C o u rtd e a lt w ith a d if fe re n t is s u e . L adner , 116 So. at602. L adnerf i l ed a t axpaye rs ui tcl ai m i ng thatthe gr antof r oad- bui l di ng pow er t o a road pr ot ect i on comm i s s i on vi ol at ed M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on A r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 170. I d. at602, 605. T he L adnerC o u rt h e ld th a t th e b o a rd o f su p e rv iso rs r e tain e d its
c o n s ti tu tio n a l p o w e r, a s th e c o m m is s io n ’s a c tio n s re q u ir e d b o a rd a p p ro v a l. I d. at60 5 . In Hen rit zy , a dec ade a f

t erthe cons truct i on of

i t s or i gi nal s eaw al l , H arr i s on C ounty s oughtan in ju n c tio n a g a in st a lan d o w n e r w h o ref u se d to re m o v e a stru c tu re tha t p re v e n ted th e c o u n ty fr o m m a k in g im p ro v e m e n ts to th e se a w a ll. Hen rit zy , 178 So. at322. T he C our tf ound the
s ta tu te to b e c o n s titu tio n a l, in tera lia , be c a us e ne w s pa pe rno t i c e i s s uf f i c i e ntf oran i n r em p ro c e e d in g , a n d th e r ig h t t o a ju ry tr ia l is p re s e rv e d
. I d. a t325- 26. The Hen rit zy ra tio n a le i s s t i l l apteven though the i n r em - i n p e rs o n a m di s t i nct i on ha s l os ti t s s i gni f i canc e i n another

### 14

c o n te x t ( ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r r e s id e n ts o f o th e r s ta te s ). See Shaff erv. Heitner , 433 U . S. 186, 195, 97 S. Ct
. 2569, 2575, 53 L . Ed. 2d 683 ( 1977)
. T he Henr it z y C o u rt e x p lain e d its d e c isio n a s fo llo w s: W e cons i derthe pr ocee di ngs of the boar ds of

pol i ce i n thi s St at e, condemni ng l ands t o be us ed as publ i c hi ghw ays , s tr i ct l y pr ocee di ngs i n r em, and thatthe or der s m ade by them i n r el at i on ther et o, ar e t o be gover ned by the rul es and pr i nci pl es appl i cabl e t o s uch ca s es . Such w as evi dent l y the i nt ent i on of t he l egi s l atur e, as i thas no tm ade a ny pr ovi s i on on the s ubj ectof not i ce, nor d ire c ted a n y m a n n e r in w h ich it sh a ll b e g iv e n . T h e w h o le c o m m u n ity is vi t al l y i nt er es t ed i n the ef f i ci entexer ci s e, by the boar ds of pol i ce, of

the j ur i s di ct i on on the s ubj ectof r oads conf

err ed upon thos e tr i bunal s by the cons t i tut i on and l aw s . T he j ur i s di ct i on co nfer r ed upon them i s of a pec ul i ar char act er , i n w hi ch eve ry ci t i zen i s i nt er es t ed. T he s ubj ect - m att eron w hi ch th e y a c t, i s o f a p u b lic n a tu re , ind e p e n d e n t o f p riv a te p a rties . T h e ju d g m e n ts r ender ed by them actupon the thi ng i t s el f , w hi ch i s condemned t o the us e of the publ i c, and w e bel i eve the publ i c i nt er es t s i m per at i vel y r equi r e thatthe or der s m ade by them, w hen made purs uantt o t he st atut es , shoul d concl ude the w hol e w or l d, w hetheractual not i ce w as gi ven ornott o the part i es i nt er es t ed i n the prem i ses. Hen rit zy , 178 So. at324- 25 ( quot i ng S tew a rt v . B d . o f P o lice o

f Hin d s C o u n ty , 25 M i ss. 4 7 9 , * 3 (1 8 5 3 )). P re se n t n o tio n s o f a d e q u a te n o tice to s a tisfy d u e -p ro c e ss c o n c e rn s m a y w e ll be di f f er entthan thos e of

the S tew a rt C our t . H ow ever , the i s s ue of not i ce i n the pr ocee di ngs
s ub j udi ce is m o o t, for the land o w n ers h av e co n ce d ed no ti ce of th ese pro ce ed ing s at ev ery j unctur e. T hus , “w hetheractual not i ce w as gi ven ornott o the part i es i nt eres t ed i n the p re m is e s ” is n o t b e fo re th is C o u rtfo r d e c is io n . I d. a t 3 2 5 . ¶21. T he l andow ner s ’ a r gum entthatthe Seaw al l A ctturns condemnat i on i nt o a l egi s l at i ve pr oces s r atherthan j udi ci al pr oces s i s w i thoutm er i t . T he Seaw al l A ctpr ovi des f or a d ju d ica tio n o f c laim s b y b o a rd s o f su p e rv iso rs, w h ich are p a rt o f th e ju d icia l b ra n c h o f sta te g o v e rn m e n t. See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 6 , § 1 7 0 ; M iss . C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -3 3 -3 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ); B d.

### 15

of L evee Com m 'rs , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d at 2 5 n . 2 . T h is C o u rth as h eld th at bo ard s o f sup erv isors are q u a s i- ju d ic ia l b o d ie s . See H

arris v. H

arrison Cou n t

y B d. of Su

pervisors , 366 So. 2d 651, 6 5 5 (M iss . 1 9 7 9 ); G lass v. H a n co ck Co u n ty E lectio n Co m m ’n , 250 M i s s . 40, 49, 156 So. 2d 825, 830 ( 1963)
. Fi nal l y, even i f w e w er e t o as s um e ar

guendo that the ac ts of the b o ard
w er e pur el y l egi s l at i ve i n na tur e, the Seaw al l A ctpr ovi des f ori ndepende ntj udi ci al r evi ew o f t h e a c tio n s o f th e b o a rd , a s th is c a s e c le a rl y d e m o n s tr a te s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 3 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶22. Fort he r eas ons det ai l ed above, w e f i nd t hatt he l andow ner s have f ai l ed i n thei r bur den to s h o w b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e S e a w a ll A c t is u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I I . W het her t he Seawal l A ct has bee n re peal ed or sup ers eded b y th e R ea l P ro p er ty A cq u isi ti o n P o li cies A ct. ¶23. T he l andow ner s s eek appl i cat i on of t he R PA PA (e nact ed i n 1972) t o t he exc l us i on of th e S e a w a ll A c t ( e n a c te d in 1 9 2 4 ). See M i s s . Code Ann. § § 43
- 37
- 1 t o 43
- 37
- 13 ( R ev. 2009) ; 6 5-33-1 t o 65- 33- 71 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he county act ed underthe author i ty gr ant ed by th e S e a w a ll A c t, b u t c o n c e d e d th a t th e R P A P A a ls o a p p lie s . See id. A s no l i t i gant ch all en g es th e a p p li ca b il ity o f th e R P A P A , that issue is no t befo re the C o u rt . H o w ev er,
w hetherthe boar d compl i ed w i t h t he R PA PA i s ati s s ue. T hus , appl i cabi l i ty w i l l be di s c us s e d wher e ne c e s s a ry t o adj udi c a t e the i s s ue of s t a tut ory c ompl i a nc e . The RPA PA i m pos es s ever al r equi r ement s on a conde m nor , i ncl udi ng the f ol l ow i ng: A ny per s on, agenc y orotherent i ty acqui r i ng re al prope r ty forany proj ector pr ogr am i n w hi ch publ i c funds a r e us ed s hal l compl y w i th the f ol l ow i ng po l i ci es: (a ) E v e ry re a so n a b le e ffo rt sh a ll be m ad e to a cq u ir e e x p e d iti o u sly re a l p ro p e rty by negot i at i on.

### 16

(b) R eal property shall be ap prai sed before the ini t iat ion of neg oti at i on s, ex ce p t th at the a cq u ir ing p erso n , a g en cy o r o ther en ti ty m ay ad o p t a pro ce d u re i n c om pl i ance w i th f

eder al r egul at i ons t o w ai ve the appr ai s al i n cas es i nvol vi ng t he acqui s i t i on by sal e ordonat i on of pr operty w i th a l ow f

ai rm arket val ue. Forthe purpos es of thi s chapt er , pr operty w i th a l ow f ai rm arketval ue i s pr operty w i th a f

ai rm arketval ue of

T en Thousand D ol l ar s ( $10, 000. 00) or les s. T h e o w n e r o r h is d e sig n a ted re p re se n tativ e sh a ll b e g iv e n an o p p o rtu n ity t o acc om pany the appr ai s erdur i ng hi s i ns pect i on of the pr operty. ( c) ( i ) E xceptas otherw i s e pr ovi ded f ori n subpar agr aph ( i i ) of thi s par agr aph, the p ri ce t hat s hall b e paid f or r eal property shall be the l esserof the b est negot i at ed pr i ce ort he appr oved appr ai s al of the f ai rm arketval ue orthe pr i ce a t w h ich th e p ro p e rty is o ffe re d fo r sa le. A n y d e c re a se o r in c re a se in th e fa ir m arketval ue of

r eal pr opert y pri or t o the dat e of val uat i on caus ed by the publ i c i m pr ovementf

orw hi ch the pr operty i s a cqui r ed orby t he l i kel i hood thatthe pr operty w oul d be ac qui r ed f ors uch i m pr ovement , otherthan thatdue t o phys i cal det er i or at i on w i thi n the r eas onabl e contr ol of t he ow ner , w i l l be di s r egar ded i n det erm i ni ng the compens at i on f orthe pr operty. T he ow ner of the re al pro p erty to b e ac q u ir ed sh all b e p rov ided w ith a w ri tt en stat em en t of, and s um m ary of

the bas i s f

or , the amount e s t abl i s hed as j ustcom pens at i on. W her e appr opr i at e, the j us tcompensa t i on f orthe real pr operty acqui r ed and f ordamages t o r emai ni ng r eal pr operty s hal l be s epar at el y s t at ed. (i i ) Th e pu rchase pri ce forreal property m ay ex ceed the am ou nt off ered as j ust compen sat i on forthe pr operty w hen r eas onabl e ef f or t s t o negot i at e an a g re e m e n t at th a t am o u n t h a v e fa ile d , an d th e p e rso n , ag e n c y o r o th e r e n tity s eeki ng t o acqui r e the pr operty appr oves an adm i ni s tr at i ve s ett l ementas re a s o n a b le , p ru d e n t a n d in th e b e s t in te re s ts o f t h e p u b lic
. . . . (d) N o o w n er sh all b e re q u ir ed to su rren d er p o sses sion o f real pro p erty b efo re th e a g re e d p u rc h a se p ric e is p a id o r th e re is d e p o site d w ith th e sta te c o u rt, i n accor dan ce w i th appl i cabl e l aw , f orthe bene f

i tof the ow neran amountnot l es s than the appr oved appr ai s al of the f ai rmar ketva l ue of

s uch pr operty, or the amountof

the aw ar d of

c om pens at i on i n the conde m nat i on pr ocee di ng of s uch pr operty.

. . . ( h) I f an i nt er es ti n r eal pr operty i s t o be ac qui r ed by exe r ci s e of p ow er of emi nentdom ai n, f

or m al condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs s hal l be i ns t i tut ed. T he a c q u irin g a u th o rity sh a ll n o t in ten tio n a lly m a k e it n e c e ss a ry fo r a n o w n e r to i ns t i tut e l egal pr ocee di ngs t o pr ove the f actof the t aki ng of

hi s r eal pr operty.

. . . . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -3 7 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ).

### 17 A . W h eth er th e R P A P A re p ea led th e S ea w a llA ct. ¶ 2 4 . T h e R P A P A d id n o t ex p licitly re p e a l th e S e a w a ll A c t, no r d o e s it re fe r to th e S e a w a ll A c t in a n y w a y . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 4 3 -37 -1 to 4 3 -37 -13 (R ev . 2 0 0 9 ). “In o rde r for a
su b se q u e n t ac t to re p e a l a f o rm e r o n e e x p re ss ly , itm u st p o in t o u t th e sta tu te r e p e a led w ith
s uf f i ci entcert ai nty. ” R o b e r ts v. Mis s . R e p u b lic a n P a r ty S ta te E x e c u tiv e Co m m ., 465 So. 2d 1050, 1051 ( M i s s . 1985) ( quot i ng E x p a rte McIn n is , 98 M i s s . 773, 783, 54 So. 260, 262 ( 1911) )
. T he R o b e rts C o u rt c o n tin u e d , “If it w a s th e p u rp o se o f th e leg isla tu re to re p e a l [a
se c tio n ] of

th e C o d e . . . itsh o u ld h a v e sa id so ex p licitly in th e rep e a lin g ac t; b u t th is th e y d id notdo. ” I

d. at1052. T her ef

or e, w e f i nd thatthe Seaw al l A ctw as note xpr es s l y r epea l ed by th e RP AP A. ¶25. A l though notexpr es s l y r epea l ed, the Seaw al l A ctm i ghthave be en r epea l ed by i m pl i cat i on, i f

i tconf l i ct s w i th the R PA PA
. H ow ever , thi s Courtha s s t at ed, “Thati m pl i ed repeal s ar e notf

avor ed has been the uni ver s al decl ar at i on of thi s and of

al l court s . ” I

d. at 1 0 5 1 . See a l

so A ssociated P ress v. B ost , 656 S o. 2d 113, 115 ( M i s s . 1995)
. T hi s C our thas h e ld tha t th e R P A P A is no t in d ire c t co n flict w ith a sta tu te v e ry sim ilar to th e S e a w a ll A c t. See B r anam an , 73 0 S o . 2d at 1 1 5 2 ; M iss. C o d e A n n . § 5 1 -29 -39 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e stan d ard
s etby thi s C our tr equi r es ther e t o be “a pl ai n and unavoi dabl e r epugnanc y betw een” s t atut es b e fo re o n e m a y b e s a id to h a v e re p e a le d th e o th e rb y im p lic a tio n . R o b e rts , 465 So. 2d at 1052 ( quot i ng McIn n is , 54 So. at262)
. E ven w hen s t atut es ar e “i n appar entconf l i ct , ” they “s houl d i f

pos s i bl e be c ons trued i n ha r m ony w i th e ach othert o gi ve ef f ectt o eac h. ” R o b e rts , 465 So. 2d a t1052. A l though a r eas of a ppar entc onf

l i ctw i l l be di s cus s ed bel ow , w e f i nd that th e h ig h sta n d a rd fo r re p e a l b y im p lica tio n h a s n o t b e e n m e t.T h e la n d o w n e rs a rg u e th a t th e o n ly “ fo rm a l” c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e d u re s a re th o se in 4 a Speci al C ou rto f Em i nentD om ai n underthe Em i nentD om ai n s t atut e t o be 

### dis cus se d belo w. SeeMiss. C od e Ann. §§ 

### 11-27- 1 to 11- 27-51 ( Rev. 2002). 18 B . W h e th e r t h e R P A P A su p e r se d e s th e S e a w a ll A ct. ¶26. D i s t i nct i ons exi s tbetw een the R PA PA and t he Seaw al l A ct . T he R PA PA pr ovi des d if feren t p rotec ti o n s for th e lan d o w n er. T h e R P A P A req u ir es a rea so n ab le effort t o ac q u ir e pr operty by negot i at i on, w hi l e the Seaw al l A ctdoes n ot m enti on negot i at i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( a) ( R ev. 2009)
. T he R PA PA r equi r es a n a ppr ai s al unl es s the pr oper t y has a l ow f ai rm arketval ue, and r equi r es thatthe ow nerbe gi ven an oppor tuni ty t o acc om pany the appr ai s er . M i s s . C od e A nn. § 43- 37- 3( b) ( R ev. 2009)
. T he Seaw al l A cthas s i m i l ar pr ovi s i ons . M i s s . Code A nn. § 65- 33- 31 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he R PA PA r equi r es w r i t t en not i ce of the bas i s f

ora compens at i on amount . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( c) ( i ) ( R ev. 2009)
. T he Seaw al l A cthas s i m i l arl anguage , r equi r i ng a w r i t t en f i ndi ng on damages
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65 -33- 31 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he R PA PA has r equi r ement s r egar di ng the amountof
co m p en sati o n , w h il e the S ea w all A ct d o es n o t. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -37 -3(c ) (R ev . 2 0 0 9 ). S u b sec ti o n 3 (d) o f th e R P A P A requ ir es the ag ree d pu rch ase price, if an y , t o be p aid b efo re the o w n er is req u ir ed to su rren d er th e p rop erty. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -37 -3(d ) (R ev . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶27. T he R PA PA r e qu i r es “f or m al condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( h) ( R ev. 2009)
. T he Seaw al l A ctpr ovi des a det ai l ed pr oces s of condemnat i on, r equi r i ng 4 f or m al pr ocee di ngs i n t he B oar d of Supervi s or s and, i f appea l ed, f

or m al j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs in t h e c o u r ts o f t h is S ta te . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 65- 33- 31, 65- 33- 33 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he te rm “ fo rm a l c o n d e m n a tio n p ro c e e d in g s ” is n o t d e fi n e d in th e R P A P A
. See M i s s . C ode A nn.

### 19

§§ 4 3- 37
- 2, 43
- 39
- 5 ( Rev. 20 09 )
. “ Formal ” i s de f i ne d a s “ Pe r t a i ni ng t o o rf ol l owi ng e sta b lish e d p ro c e d u ra l ru les , cu sto m s, a n d p ra c tice s.” B lac k ’s L a w D ictio n a ry 5 4 2 (a b r. 8 th ed
. 20 05 )
. W e f

i nd , a s the c i r c ui tc ou r tdi d, tha tthe c on de mnat i on pr oc e du r e un de rthe S e a w a ll A c t is a fo rm a l p ro c e d u re a s re q u ir e d b y th e R P A P A
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 43- 3 7 -3(h ) (R ev . 2 0 0 9 ); 6 5 -33 -31 , 6 5 -33 -33 (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶28. I n the s ame sub sect i on r equi r i ng a f or m al pr ocedur e, the R PA PA s t at es , “The
a c q u irin g a u th o rity sh a ll n o t in ten tio n a lly m ake i tnece s s ary f oran ow nert o i ns t i tut e l egal pr ocee di ngs t o prove t he f actof the t aki ng of hi s re al prope r ty. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( h) ( R ev. 2009) ( emphasi s added)
. T he l andow ner s ar gue thatt hi s l anguage i s i n conf l i ct
w i t h t he Seaw al l A ct ’ s r equi r ement s thatthe l andow ner s m ake a cl ai m , f i l e an appeal , and
re q u e s t a ju ry tr ia l. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 65- 33- 31, 65- 33- 33 ( R ev. 2005)
. H ow ever , the county i s r equi r ed t o i ni t i at e the t aki ng. O nce s uch pr ocedur es a r e i ns t i tut ed by the county, the ow nerthen has s om e pr ocedur al r equi r em ent s underthe Seaw al l A ct , butnott o pr ove the facto f t he t aki ng. T hus , the Seaw al l A cti s noti n conf l i ctw i th the R PA PA
. T hese
r equi r ement s c oncern da m ages , not“ the f actof the t aki ng . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3 (h ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶29. Fi nal l y, the l andow ner s ’ ar gum ent that the Seaw al l A ct i s “vague [ and] uncl ear ” and thus s uper s eded by the R PA PA i s w i thoutmer i t . Fi r s t , the l andow ner s do nots peci f y w hi ch partof the Seaw al l A cti s “vague [ and] uncl ear . ” Fur ther , i f ther e i s an am bigui ty w hen
cons trui ng m ul t i pl e s t atut es , the more speci f i c l aw ( Seaw al l A ct ) contr ol s , r atherthan the
m o re g e n e ra l s ta tu te (R P A P A ). See Madison Cou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 873 So. 2d at91; B r anam an , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 2 ; K il gor e v. B ar nes , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 5 -46 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### 20

T heref ore, w e fi nd thatthe S eaw al l A ctan d the R P A P A are no tho peles sl y in confl i ct . T hu s, the R PA PA does nots uper sede any partof the Seaw al l A ct , and the tw o s t atut es ar e t o be ap p li ed in co n

jun cti o n w ith ea ch o ther. I I I . W he t he r t he c ount y c om pl i e d wi t h al l c ons t i t ut i onal and s t at ut ory re qui rem ent s i n condem ni ng t he propert y. A . C o n sti tu ton a l req u irem en ts ¶30. T he f

ol l ow i ng ar e r equi r ed by the C ons t i tut i ons of the U ni t ed St at es and M i s s i s s i ppi b e fo re p riv a te p ro p e rty m a y b e tak e n o r d a m a g e d fo r p u b lic u se : (1 ) n o tice ; (2 ) o p p o rtu n ity t o be hea r d; ( 3) due a nd j us tcompensa t i on t o the ow neri n a mannerpr es cr i bed by l aw ; ( 4) publ i c us e det erm i ned as a j udi ci al ques t i on; ( 5) court s open t o pr ovi de a r emedy by t he due
c o u rs e o f l a w . See U . S. C ons t . amend. V , X I V ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, §§ 14, 17, 24. ¶31. A s not ed i n I s s ue I , the l andow ner s had ade qu at e n oti ce an d an op po rtuni ty t o be hear d. T he i s s ue of

w hethera compensa t i on amount of $0. 00 can be “due” or“j us t ” w as not decided b y the ci rcui tcou rt ; thu s, that i ssue i s not bef ore us. A s det ai l ed ab ov e i n is sues I and I I , and bel ow i n I s s ue I I I
- B , the conde m nati on w as carr i ed outi n a mannerpr es cr i bed b y la w u n d e r t h e S e a w a ll A c t a n d in c o m p lia n c e w ith a p p lic a b le p o rt io n s o f t h e R P A P A
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 43- 37- 1 t o 43-37- 13 (Rev. 2009); 65-33- 1 t o 65-33- 71 (Rev. 2005). T he l and ow ners conced e that the repl acem ent of a seaw al l i s a pub l i c use. T heref ore, pu bli c use i s notati s s ue. I f

i thad bee n, i tw oul d be s ubj ectt o j udi ci al r evi ew by the court s . T hus , the
c o u rts o f M iss iss ip p i ar e o p e n to p ro v id e a re m e d y a n d to p ro tec t la n d o w n e rs f ro m th e ir governm ent . T her ef

or e, w e f i nd thatthe pr ocedur es t o dat e have notbeen i n der ogat i on of th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f t h e la n d o w n e rs .

### 21 B . S tatu tor y re q u irem en ts ¶32. T he l andow ner s a r gue thatthi s C our t ’ s pr ece dentr equi r es s tr i ctc ons truct i on of any s ta tu te c o n fe rr in g th e p o w e r o f e m in e n t d o m a in
. See Miss . P o w e r & L ig h t Co . v. Co n e rly , 460 So. 2d 107, 112- 13 ( M i s s . 1984) ( condemnat i on f ori nt er s t at e pow erl i nes exce eded the
a u th o rity o f th e sta tu te) ; R o b erts v. Miss. S tate H igh w a y C o m m ’n , 309 So. 2d 156, 161 ( M i s s . 1975) ( condemnat i on of l and f ora r oads i de w ei gh s t at i on di d noti ncl ude m i ner al rig h ts); Fe rg u so n v. B d . o f S u p e rv iso rs o

f W ilk in so n Co u n ty , 149 M i s s . 623, 115 So. 779, 7 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 2 8 ) (n o a d

ju d ica tio n th a t ta k in g w a s in th e p u b lic in ter e st); W ise v. Y a zo o City , 9 6 M iss . 5 0 7 , 5 1 S o . 4 5 3 , 4 5 4 (1 9 1 0 ) (c o n d e m n a tio n fo r a sp u r tra c k e x c e e d e d a u th o rity gr ant ed i n ci ty chart er)
. A ccor di ng t o the l andow ner s , any pr ocedur al s hor t comi ng on the pa r to f the c ou nty r e qu i r e s a r e mand t o the b oa r d. The c a s e s c i t e d do r e qu i r e s t r i ct
c o n s tru c tio n o f t h e s ta tu te s , w ith la n d o w n e rs r e c e iv in g th e b e n e fi t o f t h e d o u b t. See id. H ow ever , the i s s ue i n eac h of thes e ca s es w as the r ightof the conde m nort o exer ci s e the pow erof emi nentdom ai n, notthe proced ure e m p lo y e d
. Co n e rly , 460 So. 2d at111 ( “The rig h t to e x e rc ise th e p o w e r is s trictly lim ited to th e p u rp o se s s p e c if ie d in th e sta tu te
c o n fe rrin g it. ” ); R o b e rts , 3 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 9 ; Fer guson , 115 So. at780 ( “W her e ther e i s any doubtof the r i ghtt o exer ci s e the pow er , the l and ow ner i s ent i t l ed t o the bene f i tof s uch doubt
. ”)
. T he W

ise C our ts t at ed the f

ol l ow i ng: T hi s hi gh pow eri s nevert o be presum ed t o be conf i ded t o any publ i c or pr i vat e body orcorpor at i on, how evergr eatm ay be the nec es s i ty f ori tt o have and exe r ci s e suc h pow er . W hen i ti s ass ert ed by any per s on orcorpor at i on, the s t at e' s as s entm us tbe cl ear l y gi ven i n l egi s l at i ve ac t s , and the s ubj ect s f or w hi ch i tm ay be exer ci s ed s peci f i cal l y named. N o s t at e has yetgi ven t o any corpor at i on t he sw eepi ng pow ert o condem n and t ake pr i vat e pr operty for“any publ i c purpos e, ” w i thoutpr ece di ng e very s uch cl aus e w i th s peci f i cal l y named

### 22

s ubj ect s f

orw hi ch i tm ay exe r ci s e the r i ght
. E ven i f i tcan be done, w e do not bel i eve a ny s t at e w i l l everconf i de thi s sover ei gn pow er , s o l i abl e t o abus e and f i l l ed w i t h poss i bi l i ty of oppr es s i on, by a cl aus e s o s w eepi ng as t o ves tany i ndi vi dual orcorpor at i on w i th the pow ert o condemn atpl eas ur e f orany and every publ i c us e, w i thouts peci f i cal l y nami ng the publ i c us e. W ise , 51 So. at455- 56. A s s t at ed above, the l andow ner s do notas s ertthata s eaw al l i s not a publ i c us e. T he l andow ner s ’ ar gum enti s notthatthe r epl ace m entof a s eaw al l exce eds the authori ty g rant ed to the b oard, bu tthat the w rong st atute w as appli ed an d thatthe st atutes , w hetherappl i cabl e ornot , w er e notf ol l ow ed. In t he Seaw al l A ct , the Legi s l atur e gr ant ed
c o u n tie s th e p o w e rt o c o n d e m n la n d to e re c t, im p ro v e a n d m a in ta in s e a w a lls
. See M i ss. C ode A nn. §§ 65- 33- 1, 65- 33- 23 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he Seaw al l A ctw i ths t ood att acks i n the
ear l y pa r tof

the tw ent i eth c entury, a nd de ci s i ons of thi s Courtuphe l d i t s const i tut i onal i ty. See Hen rit

zy , 1 7 8 S o . a t 3 2 5 -2 6 , L adner , 1 1 6 S o . a t 6 0 5 . W e fin d n o ra tio n a l b a sis o r n e w ly fo u n d k n o w led g e o r w isd o m to o v e rru le th a t p re c e d e n t. T h u s, th e c o u n ty h a d th e rig h t to
e x e rc is e its e m in e n t- d o m a in p o w e r i n th is in s ta n c e . ¶33. T he Seaw al l A ct r equi r es publ i cat i on f or thi r ty days i n a new s paper publ i s hed i n the
c o u n ty w h e r e in t h e im p ro v e m e n ts w ill b e m a d e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 31 ( R ev. 2005)
. T he l andow ner s conce de thatthi s w as done. T he actr equi r es actual not i ce of an a s s e s s m e n t v is it. See id. T he l andow ner s s i gned ce r t i f i ed- m ai l r ece i pt s upon r ece i vi ng s uch not i ces . A l s o r equi r ed i s a w r i t t en f i ndi ng, s i gned by the m em bers vot i ng i n f avor , and
e n te re d in to th e m in u te s . See id. The boa r d’ s r es ol ut i on i s a w r i t t en f i ndi ng and w as ent er ed in to th e m in u tes . T h e re so lu tio n w a s s ig n e d b y th e c ler k o f th e b o a rd o f su p e rv iso rs, w h o is also the c h an ce ry c lerk. H e ce rt if ied tha t the c o p y w as a tru e a n d co rrect co p y o f th e b o ard ’s
or der
. A l l f

i ve m ember s of

the boar d w er e l i s t ed by na m e as ha vi ng vot ed i n f avor , al though

### 23

th e irs ig n a tu re s a re n o t o n th e re s o lu tio n . W e fi n d c o m p lia n c e w ith th e s ta tu te . See Shi pm an
v. N . P a n o la Co n so l. S c h o o l D ist. , 641 So. 2d 1106, 1116- 17 ( M i s s . 1994) ( “t echni cal sh o rt co m ing of th e m inu tes” – de laye d si g n ature b y b o ard p reside n t and fail u re o f sec retary to a ttes t – d o e s n o t in v a lid a te b o a rd ’s a c tio n ); B u tlerv. S ta te , 24 1 S o. 2d 83 2, 83 5 (M i ss. 1970) ( f ai l ur e t o s i gn m i nut es nota r adi cal departur e f r om the s t atute s uch thatthe ac t i ons o f a b o ard o f sup erv isors sh o u ld b e re n d ere d v o id). ¶34. T he l andow ner s ar gue that , beca us e not al l of the f i ve m ember s of the boar d att ended th e a ss e ss m e n t v isit, th e c o u n ty d id n o t co m p ly w ith th e re q u ire m e n t th a t “th e b o a rd sh a ll,
o n fi v e d a y s ' n o tic e to p e ti ti o n e r , g o o n t h e p re m is e s a n d a s s e s s th e d a m a g e s s u s ta in e d
. . .

. ” See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -3 3 -3 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w e v e r, a s th e la n d o w n e rs c o n c e d e , a
m emberof

the boar d di d att end the as s es s m ent , al ong w i th a m emberof the com m i s s i on, as
w e ll as tw o o th e r c o u n ty o ffic ials a n d th re e C o rp s p e rso n n e l. T h e re fo re , the “ b o a rd ” d id
a tte n d in th e p e rs o n o f o n e o f its m e m b e rs a lo n g w ith se v e ra l a g e n ts o f th e b o a rd
. See Childs
v. H an cock Cou n t

y B d. of Su

pervisors , 1 S o . 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 6 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ) (no t error for b o ard to d e le g a te a u th o ri ty to a p la n n in g c o m m is s io n ). ¶35. T he nexts ect i on of t he Seaw al l A ctre qui r es t he county t o gra ntan appea l br ought by
a la n d o w n e r. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 65- 33- 33 ( R ev. 2005)
. T hi s appeal w as gr ant ed, even tho u g h the lan d o w n ers b rou g h t i t by su b m itti n g a S u g g ested B il l of E x ce p ti o n s, a p roc ed u re in a p p lic a b le to th e S e a w a ll A c t. See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 3 6 . T h e R P A P A re q u ir e s , in tera lia , the foll o w ing : ( 1 ) ne g o ti ati o n ; ( 2 ) ap p raisal be fore th e in itia tio n o f n e g o tia tio n s , (3 ) p ri c e re q u ir e m e n ts , (4 ) n o re q u ir e m e n t to s u rr e n d e r p ro p e rty bef or e the agr eed pr i ce i s paid or an am ountdepos i t ed w i th the St at e court , ( 5) f or m al

### 24

p ro c e s s , (6 ) n o in te n tio n a l re q u ir e m e n t f o r t h e la n d o w n e r t o in itia te p ro c e e d in g s . See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -3 7 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). T h e lan d o w n e rs c o n c e d e d th a t th e C o rp s n e g o tiate d w ith th e m . T h u s, th e n e g o tiatio n iss u e w a s n o t b e fo re th e trial c o u rt, an d it w a s u n n e c e ss a ry to f i nd thatthatR PA PA cl aus e had be en f ol l ow ed. Regar di ng the r equi r ementof an appr ai s al pr i ort o negot i at i ons, the C orps as s ert ed i n i t s l ett er s thatan as s es s m enthad bee n m ade. E ven s o, the R PA PA e xempt s thatr equi r ementr egar di ng pr opert i es w i th a l ow f ai rm arket
v a lu e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( b) ( R ev. 2009)
. T he pr i ce r equi rem ents of the R P A P A (p a ra g ra p h (c )) , a s th e y c o n c e rn th e “ p u rc h a s e p ri c e ” o f “ re a l p ro p e rt y a c q u ir e d ,”
w o u ld ap p ly to a sale o f l an d , b u t no t t o the interest in rea l pro p erty a t i ssu e h ere , tem p o rary c o n s tru c tio n e a s e m e n ts . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 37- 3( c) (Rev. 2009)
. T he r equi r ement thatany agr eed paymentbe m ade bef or e s urr enderof

a pr operty i s notbef

or e the C our t , as ther e has been no t aki ng as yet . T he f i nal tw o r equi r ement s (f or m al pr oces s and the
re q u ir e m e n t to in itia te ) a re d is c u s s e d a b o v e . ¶ 3 7 . S o m e o f th e R P A P A c lau se s b e in g in a p p lica b le, w e fin d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s in
erro r to fi n d tha t th e R P A P A h ad b ee n c o m p li ed w ith fu ll y . H o w ev er, th is i s h arm less erro r, as the R PA PA cl ause m ostappl i cabl e, par agr aph ( h) , w as f ol l ow ed. T her e w er e “f or m al condemnat i on pr ocee di ngs ” r egar di ng thi s “i nt er es ti n r eal pr operty . . . t o be acq uir ed by
e x e rc is e o f p o w e r o f e m in e n t d o m a in . . . .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 3 -3 7 -3 (h ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). W e af f i r m the dec i s i on of

the ci rc ui tcourtthatboth s t atut es w er e f ol l ow ed. O therthan the inap p li ca b le R P A P A clau ses d etail ed ab o v e, an y d iscrep an cies b etw ee n the p roc ed u re em p loy ed an d the s tatu tory req u ir em en ts ( sign ature s, att en d an ce at th e sit e-a sses sm en t) are

### 25

harm l es s err or s atw ors t , as they do notpert ai n t o the pow erof the boar d t o condemn t he p ro p e rt y , n o r d o th e y in fr in g e o n th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f t h e la n d o w n e rs . I V . W het her i t was er ror t o f i nd that t he l andow ners are e nt i t l ed to a ju ry trial, o r w h eth er th e m a tter sh o u ld b e r em a n d ed to th e B o a rd o f S u p e r v isor s to s tar t an ew u n d er th e se p a ra te E m ine n t D o m a in sta tu te a n d /or th e R ea l P ro p er ty A cq u isi ti o n P o li cies A ct. ¶ 3 8 . H a v in g fo u n d th a t th e S e a w a ll A c t is c o n stitu tio n a l an d sh o u ld b e a p p lied in conj unct i on w i th t he R PA PA , and t hatbot h st atut es w er e f ol l ow ed by t he boar d i n a m anner t hatd i d no ti nf

r i ng e o n the c on s t i tut i on a l r i gh t s o f the l a nd owner s , we f

i nd tha ti tw as not
err orf orthe ci r cui tcourtt o f

i nd thatthe l andow ner s ar e ent i t l ed, upon r eques t , t o a j ury tr i al in c ir c u it c o u rt . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 6 5 -3 3 -3 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 3 9 . T h e la n d o w n e rs a rg u e th a t th e p ro v isio n s o f th e E m in e n t D o m a in A c t sh o u ld a p p ly to th e e x c lu s io n o f t h e S e a w a ll A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 11- 27- 1 t o 11- 27- 51 ( R ev. 2002) , 65- 33- 1 t o 65- 33- 71 ( R ev. 2005)
. Speci f i cal l y, the l andow ner s s eek appl i cat i on of the Em i nentD om ai n A ct ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of us i ng enhanc ementas an of f s ett o a com pens at i on a m o u n t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 27-21 (R ev. 2002)
. T he l andow ner s s ubm i t“thatthe L egi s l atur e knew w hati tw as doi ng w hen .
. . i tpr ovi ded f orthe es t abl i s hm entof

the Speci al C our tof E m i nentD om ai n. ” Inde ed, t hi s C our tre ads t he Em i nentD om ai n A ct , as al l other st atutes , w i th thatpresum pti on i n m i nd
. H ow ever, the lando w ners turn a bl i nd eye to the fi rs t
sen tenc e o f th e E m inen t D o m ain A ct. T h e a ct i s a p p li ca b le, “e x ce p t as elsew h ere sp ec if icall y pro v ided un d er th e law s o f th e state o f M issi ssipp i. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -27 -1 ( R ev. 2002)
. T he Seaw al l A ctpr ovi des the s peci f i c s t atut ory exce pt i on, m aki ng the Em i nent D om ai n A cti nappl i cable herei n, w hi l e atthe s ame t i m e cl othi ng the l andow ner s w i th the

### 26

p ro te c tio n s o u r C o n s titu tio n d e m a n d s . See M iss. C o n st. art. 3 , § 2 4 . F u rth er, th e lan d o w n ers are guarant eed p rot ect i on s si m i l ar t o those provided u nd er th e E m i nen tD om ai n A ct , m ost im p o rt a n tly , a ju ry tr ia l b y th e irp e e rs fo r d a m a g e s . See M i s s . Code A nn. §§ 11- 27- 13 ( R ev. 2 0 0 2 ), 4 3 -3 7 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶4 0 . W e a ffi rm the o rde r of the H an co ck C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtan d rem an d to tha t cou rt f orpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on. ¶ 4 1 . AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.