Opinion ID: 1099746
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in reversing the hearing officer's decision?

Text: ¶ 41. The circuit court reversed the decision of the hearing officer and entered a judgment in favor of Hallmark in the amount of $509,000.00 with court costs. ¶ 42. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) states the following: The reviewing court may affirm the decision and order of the commission, or it may remand the case for further proceedings or reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the decision is: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the commission; (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; (d) Unsupported by any evidence; or (e) Arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. (emphasis added). Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. § 75-76-173 states: 1. Any party aggrieved by the final decision in the circuit court after a review of the decision and order of the commission may appeal to the Supreme Court in the manner and within the time provided by law for appeals in civil cases. The Supreme Court shall follow the same procedure thereafter as in appeals in civil actions and may affirm, reverse or modify the decision as the record and law warrant. 2. The judicial review by the circuit and Supreme Courts afforded in this chapter is the exclusive method of review of the commission's actions, decisions and orders in hearings held pursuant to Sections 75-76-159 through XX-XX-XXX, inclusive. (emphasis added). ¶ 43. Miss.Code Ann. § 75-76-171(3) clearly allows the circuit court to reverse a commission decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced, such as in the case sub judice, where the decision by the Commission violated Hallmark's due process rights. On appeal this Court may either affirm, reverse or modify the decision as the record and law warrant. Id. § 75-76-173. The present case cannot be remanded for a new hearing since the evidence is no longer in existence. The casino had control and possession of the information and yet, failed to preserve relevant evidence in violation of gaming regulations. Consequently, the appropriate remedy in this particular case is to affirm the circuit court's judgment in favor of Hallmark in the amount of $509,000.00 with costs.