Opinion ID: 1706880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the statute violates the separation of powers doctrine

Text: ¶ 10. Fortune next asserts that the amended sovereign immunity statute violates the separation of powers doctrine. She points to language in Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-3(1) which provides that governmental entities are not now, have never been and shall not be liable, and are, always have been, and shall continue to be immune from suit at law or in equity and to § 11-46-3(2), which provides that immunity is and always has been the law in this state, before and after November 10, 1982 and before and after July 1, 1984 ... ¶ 11. In Presley, this Court noted that: [i]n consonance with the spirit and intent of the foregoing constitutional provisions [Separation of powers], the courts of this state have uniformly held that the Legislature is without power to confer upon courts jurisdiction that is not given or authorized to be given them by the Constitution, and that the Legislature can impose no duties on the judiciary but such as are of a judicial character. Presley, 608 So.2d at 1295 (quoting Galloway v. Truesdell, 83 Nev. 13, 24, 422 P.2d 237, 245 (1967)(quoting Frazier v. Moffatt, 108 Cal. App.2d 379, 239 P.2d 123 (1951))). ¶ 12. This Court in Presley found that the Legislature had overstepped its boundaries by directing courts to apply only that case law that existed on November 10, 1982, thus freez[ing] in time and plac[ing] the common law as it existed at that particular moment, and tell[ing] the court this is the only substantive law it is to apply. Id. Unlike § 11-46-6, the amended statute neither freezes the law at any one moment in time nor mandates that this Court construe the common law in a particular way. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.