Mississippi State Highway Com'n v. Hurst

7 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n

    423 So. 2d 808 (Miss. 1982)   Cited 8 times

    In Null, the property involved was commercial property and in Stout the property that remained, 3.17 acres, was totally landlocked after the taking. The Court held in Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1977), that: [T]estimony of damages sustained by reason of the construction of the median and damages for inconvenience resulting from increased noise, pollution, and dust . . . were general to the neighborhood and public, were not specific damages to appellees, and testimony thereasto should have been excluded.

  2. City of Gulfport v. Anderson

    554 So. 2d 873 (Miss. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    This includes such acts as diversion of traffic by construction of a new highway and installing a median strip. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545, 546 (Miss. 1977). We look to law and not logic to find which "takings" are compensable.

  3. Miss. State Highway Com'n v. Viverette

    529 So. 2d 896 (Miss. 1988)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that "[i]nsofar as [the witness's] testimony gave the results of a prior survey, it was hearsay" because "[t]he testimony was quite clearly offered to establish the substantive truth of the results of the prior survey [and because] the surveyor was not called and subject to cross-examination, the testimony [about the survey] should not have been admitted"

    We have considered whether the evidence is such that we might here fix the compensation due and render the case here. See Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545, 546 (Miss. 1977). The top side of the valuation and damages testimony, however, is too uncertain to permit this course.

  4. State Highway Com'n of Miss. v. Havard

    508 So. 2d 1099 (Miss. 1987)   Cited 49 times
    Holding the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure govern the proceedings of the special court of eminent domain, “except where there may be found a procedural statute to the contrary”

    MSHC relies upon Smith v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 423 So.2d 808 (Miss. 1982) and Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1977). We find these cases wholly consistent with what has been said in Section III above. Indeed, the analysis there presented is sufficient to dispose of this issue.

  5. Price v. Price

    430 So. 2d 848 (Miss. 1983)   Cited 18 times

    See State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350 (Miss. 1981); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1977); Green v. Green, 317 So.2d 392 (Miss. 1975); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank, 304 So.2d 636 (Miss.

  6. Pearson v. Fortner

    386 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    00 per week. The rule often stated by this Court is to the effect that, if no brief is filed on behalf of the appellee, the fact of confessed error follows unless from the face of the appeal there manifestly is no error. Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545 (Miss. 1977); Green v. Green, 317 So.2d 392 (Miss. 1975); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank, 304 So.2d 636 (Miss.

  7. Mississippi Emp. Sec. Com'n v. Douglas

    758 So. 2d 1059 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing circuit court reversal of Board of Review denial of benefits to employee terminated for manufacturing fake identification cards away from work when some of the counterfeit cards were found in personnel files of other employees

    There is authority for the proposition that this failure can be taken as a confession of error. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545, 546 (Miss. 1977). However, even in the absence of a brief from Douglas, we note the somewhat contrary proposition that the presumption of correctness that attaches to a lower tribunal's decision requires an appellate court to review the matter and affirm if it is convinced that the lower tribunal was manifestly correct.