Opinion ID: 1819941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether The Times had standing to appeal.

Text: ¶ 6. The standing of a party to an appeal is a question of law reviewed under a de novo standard. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Gaddis, 730 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Miss.1998); T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So.2d 1340, 1342 (Miss.1995); Miss. State Dep't of Human Servs. v. Barnett, 633 So.2d 430, 434 (Miss.1993); UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 525 So.2d 746, 754 (Miss.1987). [S]tanding is a `jurisdictional issue which may be raised by any party or the Court at any time.' City of Madison, 763 So.2d at 166 (quoting Williams, 390 So.2d at 1014). ¶ 7. The Appeal asserts that The Times, as an unnecessary codefendant, does not have standing to appeal a declaratory judgment which affects only the legal rights of The Appeal. Further, The Appeal claims that The Times lacks standing because no actionable controversy exists between The Appeal and The Times. [5] The Times counters that it was not only a necessary party, but an adverse party as well. The Times asserts that the circuit court's ruling was adverse to its monetary interest. ¶ 8. Mississippi's standing requirements are broad. See Dunn v. Miss. State Dep't of Health, 708 So.2d 67, 70 (Miss.1998). Unlike the federal rules, which are more strict, Mississippi parties have standing to sue or intervene when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise authorized by law. Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998, 1003 (Miss.1995) (quoting State ex rel. Moore v. Molpus, 578 So.2d 624, 632 (Miss. 1991)); see also Mississippi Gaming Comm'n v. Board of Educ., 691 So.2d 452, 460-61 (Miss.1997); Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, 557 So.2d 780, 782 (Miss. 1990); Dye v. State ex rel. Hale, 507 So.2d 332, 338 (Miss.1987). ¶ 9. For support, The Appeal cites a case from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. In S & F Publishing Co., Inc. v. Gulf Publishing Co., 760 So.2d 38 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000), one newspaper filed a declaratory judgment action against another newspaper, seeking a determination of rights under Sections 13-3-31 and 13-3-32 of the Mississippi Code. Id. at 39. The Court of Appeals found that neither newspaper had standing against the other in a declaratory judgment action concerning status under either statute. Id. at 41. This case represents a running feud between business competitors that, on the issues presented in this case, could never ripen into a situation where either could obtain a coercive remedy against the other. To the extent that either litigant felt itself wrongfully deprived of the right to compete for the legal notice publishing business of a governmental body within the borders of Harrison County, the coercive legal remedy would be against the public body contracting for the publication and not against the company that obtained the contract. Id. ¶ 10. The case before us is factually similar but different procedurally. Here, The Times did not file a complaint against The Appeal. Rather, DeSoto County filed suit and named The Times and The Appeal as co-defendants. Unlike S & F Publishing Co., Inc., the governing body contracting for publication was a party to the action. See id. at 41. Furthermore, [a]n appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court from any final judgment of a circuit or chancery court in a civil case, not being a judgment by default, by any of the parties or legal representatives of such parties. . . . Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-3 (Rev.2004) (emphasis added). ¶ 11. We find that The Times has standing to appeal.