City of Laurel, Mississippi v. Kenneth (Ken) Keyes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-00984-COA
THE CITY OF LAUREL
APPELLANT
v.
KENNETH (KEN) KEYES
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
APPELLEE
05/19/2008
HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM
JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DAVID M. RATCLIFF
DEIDRA J. BASSI
THOMAS T. BUCHANAN
JOHN D. SMALLWOOD
CIVIL - OTHER
REVERSED CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
RULING AND ORDERED CITY TO
PROMOTE KEYES AS BATTALION CHIEF,
EFFECTIVE JUNE 23, 2003
VACATED - 03/16/2010
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND BARNES, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
Ken Keyes was a shift captain with the City of Laurel Fire Department. Keyes had
been shift captain since 1997. Keyes was passed over for a promotion to battalion chief.
This promotion was given to a fireman who was a station captain, a rank below Keyes’s.
Keyes filed a grievance with the City of Laurel (the City) and the Laurel Civil Service
Commission (LCSC) for failure to promote him to battalion chief. After a hearing on the
matter, the LCSC upheld the promotion and rejected Keyes’s grievance.
¶2.
Keyes subsequently filed an appeal to the Jones County Circuit Court. The circuit
court reversed the ruling of the LCSC and ordered the City to promote Keyes to battalion
chief, effective June 23, 2003. The City appeals, asserting the following issues: (1) whether
jurisdiction was proper; (2) whether Keyes had standing to pursue the appeal; (3) whether
the LCSC’s decision to not promote Keyes was made in good faith for cause; and (4) whether
the trial court’s decision should be reversed.
DISCUSSION
¶3.
Keyes argues that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to Mississippi Code Annotated section 21-31-23 (Rev. 2007). Section 21-31-23 concerns
disciplinary proceedings and is not applicable to an application for promotion. However,
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-95 (Rev. 2002) grants writs of certiorari to the
circuit court to review proceedings from tribunals inferior, but Mississippi Code Annotated
section 11-51-93 (Rev. 2002) limits the circuit court’s scope of review to questions of law.
Section 11-51-95 considers a municipal civil service commission an inferior tribunal. See
Gill v. Miss. Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation, 574 So. 2d 586, 591 (Miss. 1990).
¶4.
Keyes filed a notice of appeal and not a writ of certiorari. We must determine whether
the notice of appeal could be deemed a writ of certiorari. According to 11-51-93, the writ
of certiorari must be in the form of a petition and supported by an affidavit. In Crider v.
Howard, 295 So. 2d 776, 777 (Miss. 1974), the supreme court treated a petition for judicial
2
review as an application for writ of certiorari where all other essentials for appeal by
certiorari were met within the time required by law. However, in Bertucci v. Mississippi
Department of Corrections, 597 So. 2d 643, 647 (Miss. 1992), the supreme court reversed
the decision of the circuit court, finding that the circuit court erred in treating the MDOC’s
notice of appeal as a writ of certiorari. The supreme court noted that the MDOC’s appeal
lacked the statutory requirements; thus, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
Id. at 646.
¶5.
In the case at bar, Keyes’s notice of appeal does not contain a petition or any
supporting affidavit. The notice of appeal cannot be construed to be a petition for certiorari;
thus, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Keyes’s appeal. Accordingly, the order
of the Jones County Circuit Court is vacated.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
VACATED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
