This court reversed the dismissal and remanded the appeal to the chancery court for further proceedings. Adams v. Miss. State Oil and Gas Bd., 854 So.2d 7 (Miss.Ct.App.2003). In light of the “directive to the circuit and chancery courts, when sitting as appellate courts, to look to the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for direction,” this court held “the filing of the notice of intention to appeal directly with the chancery court was enough to perfect the appeal.” Id. at 10 (¶ 12) (applying M.R.A.P. 4(a)).

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 53-3-101 to -119. See Miss. Code Ann. § 53-1-39 and § 53-3-119; see also Adams v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 854 So.2d 7, 9 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)(“The applicable statute governing judicial review of certain actions of the Oil and Gas Board permits an appeal ‘to the chancery court of the county in which all or a part of appellant's property affected by such rule ... is situated ....' Miss. Code Ann. § 53-1-39(a)(Rev.1999).”). Given that no party has asserted an objection to staying this federal lawsuit pending the appeal of the Board's March 2021 Order to the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi, the Court concludes that this case should be stayed until the administrative appeal is final and nonappealable in accordance with the governing state statutes.

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 53-3-101 to -119. See Miss. Code Ann. § 53-1-39 and § 53-3-119; see also Adams v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 854 So.2d 7, 9 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)(“The applicable statute governing judicial review of certain actions of the Oil and Gas Board permits an appeal ‘to the chancery court of the county in which all or a part of appellant's property affected by such rule ... is situated ....' Miss. Code Ann. § 53-1-39(a)(Rev.1999).”). Given that no party has asserted an objection to staying this federal lawsuit pending the appeal of the Board's March 2021 Order to the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi, the Court concludes that this case should be stayed until the administrative appeal is final and nonappealable in accordance with the governing state statutes.

But Bowling had nothing to do with an interlocutory appeal. Rather, the court of appeals held an appeal to the supreme court from a board decision "shall not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction" based on a "defect in the application for appeal." Id. at 441 (¶ 47) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 11–3–5 ). He also cites Adams v. Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board, 854 So.2d 7, 9 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). In Adams, the court of appeals held filing a notice of appeal with the wrong entity—the chancery court, not the oil and gas board—was sufficient to preserve the substantive issues for judicial review.

Two appeals regarding procedural issues occurred prior to this appeal. In Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board, 854 So.2d 7 (Miss.Ct.App.2003), the chancellor dismissed Contestants' appeal for failing to properly perfect the appeal within the time permitted by statute. Id. at 8.

Two appeals regarding procedural issues occurred prior to this appeal. In Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board, 845 So. 2d 7 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), the chancellor dismissed Contestants' appeal for failing to properly perfect the appeal within the time permitted by statue. Id. at 8.