Opinion ID: 1100343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Gnemi's circuit court petition for judicial review properly sworn?

Text: ¶ 29. Waters asserts that the oath attached to Gnemi's petition for judicial review was insufficient as filed. Specifically, Waters directs our attention to the Verification discussed supra, and argues: Gnemi further failed to swear to the petition for judicial review when filed. His attorney signed the complaint, as any other civil action, on September 23, 2003. A document purporting to be a Verification recited that James Gnemi on oath stated that the matters and things in the said petition were true and correct, upon information and belief  on September 22, 2003, by a separate document attached to the said petition, which was dated September 23, 2003. [16] ¶ 30. In support of this argument, Waters cites Fillingane v. Breland, 212 Miss. 423, 54 So.2d 747 (1951), a case where this Court addressed the verification of a primary election contest petition. In Fillingane, Breland and Fillingane ran in the Democratic primary for District Five Supervisor in Perry County. Breland received 171 votes and Fillingane received 170 votes. Fillingane promptly wrote the county executive committee requesting that the committee investigate certain irregularities and declare a new election. Fillingane then filed a sworn petition of protest with the county executive committee, [17] again asserting irregularities, including an incident where a ballot was allegedly marked with an ordinary lead pencil. On Breland's motion, the county executive committee dismissed Fillingane's petition, whereupon Fillingane then filed a sworn petition for judicial review, which petition carried forward the assertions contained in his initial petition filed with the county executive committee. Likewise, Fillingane attached to his sworn petition for judicial review, a certified copy of his original protest as well as the proceedings before the county executive committee. Fillingane's petition for judicial review contained an oath or verification similar to the verification in the case sub judice in that Fillingane signed an oath which, inter alia, stated that the matters and things set forth in this petition ......are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, belief and information. While the special tribunal made certain factual findings based on Fillingane's allegations, the tribunal dismissed the petition because it was not a sworn petition under Code 1942, Section 3182. [18] 212 Miss. at 435, 54 So.2d at 748-49. In reversing the special tribunal's dismissal, we quoted from Griffith's Chancery Practice, Section 175, and stated: The correct allegation must be not less positive than this: The complainant has been informed and believes, and upon such information and belief charges the facts to be, stating them as facts, or it may be stated thus. Complainant charges, as he is informed and believes, stating the facts charged. This section is documented by cases involving the Code section just referred to, and therefore states a rule more stringent than that which is applicable to the sufficiency of the oath considered apart from the statute. It will be seen that the affiant states that the allegations of the petition are true and correct. Its efficacy is not impaired by adding that the assurance of such truth is derived from belief or information as indeed are most assertions of fact. Our conclusion could, if necessary, take reinforcement from Section 3158 which requires an ordinary and reasonable construction    to accomplish its purposes. 212 Miss. at 436, 54 So.2d at 749. Finally in Fillingane, we stated the verification of the petition for judicial review could not well have been more definite and we hold that it need not have been. Id. ¶ 31. Thus, consistent with Fillingane, Gnemi's verification attached to his petition for judicial review was more than adequate and in compliance with the applicable provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927 (Rev.2001). ¶ 32. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.