Opinion ID: 865517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the court of appeals applied the

Text: INCORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW. ¶35. The Court of Appeals stated: In reviewing the decision of a chancery or circuit court regarding an agency action, this Court applies the same standard employed by the lower court. Mississippi Sierra Club v. Mississippi Dep't of Envtl. Quality, 819 So. 2d 515, 519 (P15) (Miss. 2002). This Court will not disturb an agency's ruling unless the decision of the administrative agency (1) was unsupported by substantial evidence; (2) was arbitrary or capricious; (3) was beyond the power of the administrative agency to make; or (4) violated some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party. Id. Parchman v. Amwood Prods., Inc., 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 31, , ¶10 (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2007). Parchman argues that whether the statute of limitations had expired presents a question of law, and is thus reviewed de novo, directing us to Jordan v. Pace Head Start, 852 So. 2d 28, 30 (Miss. App. 2002). Furthermore, Parchman argues that remedial statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the injured, directing us to Holbrook by & Through Holbrook v. Albright Mobile Homes, Inc., 703 So. 2d 842, 844 (Miss. 1997). ¶36. Assuming arguendo that Parchman is correct in his assertion that the Court of Appeals should have utilized a de novo standard of review, it is my opinion that Parchman still has failed to inform us as to how the different standard of review would have altered the decision. “Assertions of error without prejudice do not trigger reversal.” Rollins v. State, 970 So. 2d 716, 722 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Jones v. State, 912 So. 2d 973, 977 (Miss. 2005); see also Nicholson ex rel. Gollott v. State, 672 So. 2d 744, 751 (Miss. 1996)). I find this issue to be without merit; however, I discuss the standard of review in more detail infra.