Court Opinion

ID: 9664223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:08:07.733871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:18.685348
License: Public Domain

PIERCE, Justice,
specially concurring:
¶ 20. Although I fully concur with the majority opinion, I am compelled to write separately to address the issue of deferential review. The dissent, in concluding that the trial court erred in finding that “good cause” was not present, bases its analysis on this Court’s holding in Jenkins v. Oswald, 3 So.3d 746 (Miss.2009). Curiously absent from the dissent’s analysis is a discussion of the deference this Court owes a trial court in finding whether good cause was present in a particular matter. As I stated in a special concurrence in Jenkins, “[i]t cannot be overstated that our trial courts are entitled to ‘deferential review* in matters that require a discretionary ruling.” Jenkins, 3 So.3d at 751 (Pierce, J. specially concurring) (citing Rains v. Gardner, 731 So.2d 1192, 1197-98 (Miss.1999)). Under this Court’s limited scope of review, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in the present matter.
RANDOLPH, LAMAR AND CHANDLER, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.