In Re: Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Serial: 158791
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 89-R-99027-SCT
IN RE: MISSISSIPPI RULES OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
ORDER
This matter is before the Court en banc on the Court’s own motion to amend Rule
27(f) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. After due consideration, the Court finds that the
amendment of Rule 27(f) as set forth in Exhibit “A” will promote the fair and efficient
administration of justice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rule 27(f) is hereby amended as set forth in
Exhibit “A” hereto. This amendment is effective on July 1, 2010.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall spread this order upon
the minutes of the Court and shall forward a true certified copy to West Publishing Company
for publication as soon as practical in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter, Third Series
(Mississippi Edition) and in the next edition of Mississippi Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of November, 2009.
/s/ Ann H. Lamar
ANN H. LAMAR, JUSTICE
AGREE: ALL JUSTICES.
Exhibit A
RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
RULE 27. MOTIONS
...
(f) Motions Proposing Adoption, Repeal, or Amendment of Rules of Court and Rules
Governing the Practice of Law. All applications concerning the adoption, repeal, or
amendment of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Evidence, Rules of
Appellate Procedure, Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, Uniform Chancery Court
Rules, Uniform Rules of Procedure for Justice Court, Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of the
Commission on Judicial Performance, Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing
Judicial Education, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi
Bar, Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, Rules Governing
Admission to the Mississippi Bar, and all other rules affecting the practice of law and the
administration of the courts in Mississippi shall be filed in the Supreme Court. Such motions
shall comply with all other requirements of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure;
specifically, four (4) copies shall be filed with the original, but the Supreme Court may
require that additional copies be furnished. Such motions should include the text of the
proposed new rule or of the rule to be amended with deletions indicated by strikeouts and
additions shown underlined. The motions shall also be accompanied by a copy of the
motion and of the proposed rule or rule amendment in an electronically formatted medium
(such as USB Flash Drive or CD-ROM). No notice or response to such motion shall be
required, except as may be required by the Court, but the Court may in its discretion submit
any rules motion to the Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee, or any other source, for
review and comment. Upon receipt of requests or petitions for adoption or amendment of
rules the Court may publish the proposal or request on the Supreme Court's Internet site, and
invite comment thereon. No action shall be taken by the Supreme Court on such proposal
or request for a period of thirty(30) days following the commencement of such publication,
and all comments received shall be considered; however, the Court may dispense with such
publication and comment in the event that the Court deems the urgency of the proposal or
request prohibitive to the delay needed for publication and comment.
...
[Adopted to govern matters filed on or after January 1, 1995; amended October 15, 1998,
effective from and after January 1, 1999; amended July 1, 1999; amended effective August,
1999; amended effective November 2, 2000; amended effective May 29, 2003 to provide
for reconsideration of certain specific types of motions and petitions, if filed within 14 days
following the ruling for which reconsideration is sought; amended effective September 30,
2004 to recognize that the Court may from time to time allow the clerk to rule on specified
motions; amended March 20, 2008, to expand the provision under which the Court may post
proposals for public comment; amended effective July 1, 2010.]
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.
