Oktibbeha.
[4] The full title of House Bill 997 was "AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 77-3-13, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR OPERATING WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND THAT MUNICIPAL UTILITIES MAY NOT OPERATE IN AREAS CERTIFICATED TO ANOTHER UTILITY, AND TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN UTILITY PROPERTY WITHIN MUNICIPALLY ANNEXED AREAS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES." This act took effect from and after its date of passage, which was March 4, 2002. It is interesting to note that this was only four days after our denial of 4-County's motion for rehearing in Starkville I.
[5] As will be discussed later in this opinion, in challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 997, Starkville failed to give proper notice to the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi. See Miss. R. Civ. P. 24(d).
[6] This is exactly what the chancellor in today's case did in addressing the jurisdictional issue when he stated that the issue had to be resolved by reviewing "the allegations of the complaint."
[7] The underlined language represents the language added to Miss.Code Ann. § 77-3-13(3) by H.B. 997.
[8] "The Contracts Clause was made part of the Constitution to remedy a particular social evil - the state legislative practice of enacting laws to relieve individuals of their obligations under certain contracts - and thus was intended to prohibit States from adopting `as [their] policy the repudiation of debts or the destruction of contracts or the denial of means to enforce them.'" Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 439, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934).