Opinion ID: 2536393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether this court can look to its former opinion in this case to determine if it was erroneous and wrong and would lead to unjust results, thus reversing the former opinion.

Text: ¶ 23. Stewart spends much of the appellant's brief arguing the underlying merits of Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stewart, 969 So.2d 17, 18-19 (Miss.2007), effectively converting the appeal of costs awarded into a fourth motion for rehearing. ¶ 24. In denying the first motion for rehearing filed by Stewart, this Court found that it had correctly decided Stewart, and Stewart was not allowed to come before this Court using this appeal of costs as a guise for yet another rehearing on this Court's previous decision. This Court denied Stewart's Motion for Rehearing as well as two subsequent motions filed after this Court had issued the mandate. Stewart is procedurally barred from raising issues already disposed of by this Court in the prior appeal. See Miss. R.App. P. 40(a). Therefore, we find this issue to have no merit.