Opinion ID: 1962078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: The Governor and USPCI both raise several issues on appeal. Those issues may be stated as follows: I. WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES LAW APPLIES TO THE GOVERNOR. II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. III. WHETHER McGOWAN HAD STANDING TO OBTAIN A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ENJOIN THE GOVERNOR. IV. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO DISMISS THE ACTION BASED UPON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. V. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THERE WAS NO MEANINGFUL RECORD FOR APPEAL. VI. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN OVERLY BROAD INJUNCTION. VII. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACTIONS TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINAL RULE, INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CAP, WERE VOID.
In Fordice v. Thomas, supra , this Court held that the APL applied to the Governor, making his Office an agency under the literal interpretation of Miss. Code Ann. § 25-43-1 et seq. While the appeal of this case was pending, the Mississippi Legislature amended Miss. Code Ann. § 25-43-5 to specifically exclude the Governor from the requirements of the APL. An amended act is ordinarily construed as if the original statute had been repealed, and as far as any action after the adoption of the amendment is concerned, as if the statute had been originally enacted in its amended form. Beatty v. State, 627 So.2d 355, 357 (Miss. 1993); Stone v. Independent Linen Service Co., 212 Miss. 580, 55 So.2d 165 (1951); McCullen v. Sinclair Refining Co., 207 Miss. 71, 41 So.2d 382 (1949). This Court in Stone reiterated the law set forth in Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So.2d 638 (1942): Many decisions in this state have affirmed the rule, which generally prevails, that the effect of a repealing statute is to abrogate the repealed statute as completely as if it had never been passed, and that a statute modifying previous statute has the same effect as though the statute had all the while previously existed in the same language as that contained in the modified statute, unless the repealing or modifying statute contains a saving clause. [Citations omitted] Stone, 212 Miss. 580, 586-8, 55 So.2d 165, 168, quoting Deposit Guaranty, 193 Miss. 432, 438, 9 So.2d 638, 639. This Court in State ex. rel. Pittman v. Ladner, 512 So.2d 1271 (Miss. 1987), considered the effect of an amended or repealed statute on existing causes. This Court stated: [b]ecause the statute has been changed, and because this Court is obliged to act consistent with a rational reading of the legislative declaration, we have as a matter of reason, precedent and choice determined that we should stay our hand from enforcement of that which has been repealed. Ladner, 512 So.2d at 1276-77. This Court, in summarizing the law, determined that: [I]n litigation between the state and an individual, where the operative statute has been repealed or amended and the litigation arises out of a pre-repeal, pre-amendment transaction or occurrence, the individual may claim and be given the benefit of the prior law in effect at the operative time where he regards it more favorable to him. But the converse is not necessarily so. Unless the state holds a contract or otherwise has a vested right, a repealed or amended statute will ordinarily not be enforced against an individual where he regards it as less favorable to him. Ladner, 512 So.2d at 1277. When cases are in the bosom of this Court and there is involved a statute that is modified prior to a final decision of this Court, we take that modification into consideration. Bell v. Mitchell, 592 So.2d 528 (Miss. 1991), citing Parker v. Bailey, 437 So.2d 33 (Miss. 1983). This Court has also stated that an amendment to a statute should be treated as though it had been a part of the original statute. City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 556 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Miss. 1990). As a result, the Governor's Office is not an agency within the meaning of the APL. Further, the Governor did not have to comply with the requirements of the APL in adopting his proposed CAP because it is not a rule within the meaning of the APL.