Opinion ID: 1598112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to change venue

Text: ¶ 29. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-17 (1972) says that a county may be sued in any court sitting at the county site, provided jurisdictional amounts are met. Likewise, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-25 (Supp. 2001) provides that a suit against a municipality shall be instituted in the county in which such municipality is situated. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3 (Supp.2001) states: Civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in the county in which the defendant or any of them may be found.... ¶ 30. We previously ruled in Estate of Jones v. Quinn, 716 So.2d 624 (Miss.1998), that the proper question is not whether the plaintiff's attorney intended to fraudulently establish venue, but whether the facts support inclusion of the defendant upon whom venue is based. (citing Jefferson v. Magee, 205 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1967)). We also held in the case that Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13 (Supp.2001) was the appropriate venue statute: The venue for any suit filed under the provisions of this chapter against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or event on which the liability phase of the action is based, occurred or took place. As we have already ruled in this case, the alleged negligence took place in Simpson County and venue is proper there. ¶ 31. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-57 (1972) says that venue in a civil suit can only be changed one time. This Court has previously changed venue from Hinds County to Simpson County, and the trial court was, therefore, correct in denying the plaintiffs' request for a second change of venue.