Opinion ID: 1830664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶ 49. Regardless of the adequacy of the statute's post-deprivation remedies, an eminent domain statute must provide a predeprivation hearing before taking property. The statute, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 65-1-301 to 65-1-347, does not do so and is thus unconstitutional as violative of procedural due process under our state constitution, Miss. Const. Art. 3, § 14. Given this holding, we do not decide the federal due process issue. ¶ 50. Our state constitutionArticle 3, Section 17mandates that a judicial determination of public use be made whenever an government takes private property. Moreover, the condemnor has the burden of proof on the issue of public use. Hence, Sections 65-1-301 to -347, strictly construed, violates of Article 3, Section 17 of our state constitution for not providing a predeprivation opportunity for the landowner to challenge the taking and make the condemnor satisfy its burden on the issue of public use. ¶ 51. Because Lemon's separation of powers argument was not raised before the trial court, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. ¶ 52. For these reasons, we reverse the judgments of the lower court, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¶ 53. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., MILLS AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. PITTMAN, P.J., AND BANKS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.