Opinion ID: 1782545
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether mtc's condemnation of st. andrew's property constituted a public necessity.

Text: ¶ 17. There are three bases for dismissal of an eminent domain action: (1) plaintiff is not a legal entity entitled to the right of eminent domain; (2) there is no public necessity for the taking of the particular property; and (3) the contemplated use for the property is not a public use. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-15. ¶ 18. Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 65-1-47, the MTC's eminent domain power is limited to the land necessary for the state highway system. [P]ublic necessity is determined by a duly authorized governing body in its exercise of legislative power at the time the need is recognized.... Jackson Redevelopment Auth. v. King, Inc., 364 So.2d 1104, 1110 (Miss.1978). This legislative determination is for the condemning authority. Governor's Office of Gen. Servs. v. Carter, 573 So.2d 736, 738 (Miss.1990); Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Brown, 248 Miss. 4, 20, 156 So.2d 572, 578 (1963). Selection of the particular land to condemn as well as the amount of land necessary are legislative questions to be determined by the condemnor. Carter, 573 So.2d at 738; King, 364 So.2d at 1111; Council v. Texas Gas Transmission, 202 So.2d 916, 917 (Miss.1967). The condemnor's determination of public necessity will be disturbed only when fraud or abuse of discretion is proven by the landowner. Morley v. Jackson Redevelopment Auth., 632 So.2d 1284, 1288 (Miss.1994); Paulk v. Housing Auth., 195 So.2d 488, 491 (Miss. 1967); Brown, 248 Miss. at 20, 156 So.2d at 578. So long as the condemnor exercised its authority in a reasonable manner in adopting the plan to condemn, there will be no finding of abuse of discretion. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Jacob, 192 So.2d 260, 262 (Miss.1966). ¶ 19. MTC argues and the lower court found that the subject land is reasonably necessary to satisfy both the present and anticipated needs of the project, which include expanding and maintaining the state highway system for the safety and convenience of the traveling public. We agree. The lower court's ruling is affirmed.