Case Name: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (PERS) v. Armis E. HAWKINS
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2000-10-17
Citations: 775 So. 2d 101
Docket Number: No. 97-IA-01214-SCT
Parties: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (PERS) v. Armis E. HAWKINS
Judges: BANKS, P.J., FILES SEPARATE STATEMENT ON ORDERS JOINED BY WALLER AND COBB, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 775
Pages: 101–108

Head Matter:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI (PERS) v. Armis E. HAWKINS
No. 97-IA-01214-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 17, 2000.

Opinion:
ORDER
This matter has come before the Court en banc on Motion for Rehearing filed by the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi (PERS), seeking rehearing of the decision on the merits rendered by the Court in this cause. Having considered the motion, the Court has determined that its opinion in the matter should be withdrawn and that the Motion for Rehearing should be dismissed as moot.
Now, having further considered the propriety of their further participation, Presiding Justice Banks and Justices Waller and Cobb, upon issuance of this Order, recuse themselves from further participation on the merits of the case. Although no motion for recusal has been filed in this case, Chief Justice Prather, Presiding Justice Pittman and Justices Smith and Mills heretofore elected not to participate in the decision on the merits of the case. Presiding Justice Sullivan, who did participate is now deceased. Concurrently with the issuance of this Order, the Court is issuing an order finding that there are insufficient Justices available to form a quorum of the Court for further consideration on the merits of the case and directing that, unless the attorneys in the case can agree upon members of the bar to serve as Special Justices, the Governor should be advised of the need to commission others to serve in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the opinion rendered by this Court in this cause be and the same is hereby withdrawn and that the Motion for Rehearing is dismissed as moot, and that the undersigned further recuse themselves from further participation on the merits of this case.
/s/ Fred L. Banks, Jr.
FRED L. BANKS, Jr., PRESIDING JUSTICE
/s/ William L. Waller, Jr.
WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., JUSTICE
/s/ Kay B. Cobb
KAY B. COBB, JUSTICE
BANKS, P.J., FILES SEPARATE STATEMENT ON ORDERS JOINED BY WALLER AND COBB, JJ.
McRAE and DIAZ, JJ., DISSENT FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE FORMER OPINION AND THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUSTICES AND FILE SEPARATE STATEMENTS ON ORDERS.
PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., SMITH AND MILLS, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
BANKS, Presiding Justice,
Statement on Order:
¶ 1. I write briefly to elucidate further this Court's action and to respond to the dissenting opinions of Justices McRae and Diaz.
¶ 2. First, a majority of the en banc Court remaining to hear this matter following initial recusals, to wit, Justices Waller, Cobb and I, decided, upon reflection and in consideration of the motion for rehearing, that the better course was to withdraw the opinion previously issued, which I authored, and to recuse themselves from a decision on this case. Our recusal left this Court without a quorum to hear this case. It followed that the provision in the constitution designed for this situation was, of necessity, invoked. Miss. Const, art. 6, § 65.
¶ 3. This is not unprecedented. In fact, it was the norm in the early years of our constitution when there were but three Justices and when there was no provision for a quorum. See, e. g., John E. Hall Comm'n Co. v. R.L. Crook & Co., 87 Miss. 445, 40 So. 1006 (1906); Adams v. Mississippi State Bank, 75 Miss. 701, 23 So. 395 (1897). The quorum provision and the addition of a greater number of Justices have made the instances where the constitutional provision had to be invoked understandably rare. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 145A & 145B. Slush v. Patterson, 201 Miss. 113, 29 So.2d 311 (1947). It is, of course, the rare case where a majority of the Court feels compelled to recuse. However, this is just such a case. Once that fact is realized, our course of action pursuant to our constitution is clear.
¶4. Thus, the arguments pressed by Justice McRae are inapt. Our constitution itself answers both his separation of powers claim and his rule of necessity claim. The cases upon which he relies deal with either a different constitution or with situations wholly inapposite to what is before this Court today.
¶5. Justice Diaz's position has facial merit, but an assignment to the Court of Appeals would involve an assignment by Justices who have recused themselves, running afoul of our admonition in Banana v. State, 638 So.2d 1329, 1331 (Miss.1994). Additionally, such an assignment would likely cause us to confront this question again on a petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
¶ 6. It clearly would have been better for all of the recusing Justices to have done so sooner rather than later. The failure to do so, however, does not relieve us of the obligation to search our consciences and the law in an effort to do that which ought to be done. See Miss. Const. art. 6, § 165; Miss.Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 C. That which ought to be done is, in our view, what we do today.
WALLER AND COBB, JJ" JOIN THIS STATEMENT.