in Mississippi

“all parties interested in, affected by or being aggrieved by said proposed
enlargement.”
Rules regarding standing, statutory or otherwise, import objective
standards. Still, common sense suggests the party asserting standing would be
more sensitive to whether its interests will be affected by an annexation – than
would the annexing municipality or even the trial court. Cf. Hentz v. State, 489
So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Miss. 1986). A party’s assertion of an interest or effect goes a
long way toward establishing that it has an interest in or will likely be affected by
an annexation. 6
The Harrison County Court noted that, because the cities in that case were objecting to the
county’s standing, those cities would in essence have had the Supreme Court review the merits
of the County’s facts and “findings” (with regard to the reasonableness of the proposed
annexation) just to decide the standing question. The Court relied on its previous authority as a
reminder that “[w]hat proof the objectors may or may not have been prepared to offer at the
hearing bearing upon the question of the reasonableness of the proposed expansion is of course,
impossible for us to know or foresee with any degree of accuracy.” 7
The Court’s earlier case contained language noting that at an early stage of the suit’s proceedings
it is impossible to determine what facts or circumstances of evidence a party may develop which
would have a bearing upon the reasonableness of the proposed annexation, in part because of
many factors which bear upon the question to ascertain the weight of both the advantages and
disadvantages of the annexation. 8 In the Harrison County case, the Court could not say with
confidence that Harrison County had no interest in, nor that it would not be affected by, the
proposed annexations, giving Harrison County standing to object to each of those annexations. 9
Though the precise question has not arisen in the Supreme Court before or since, the Court has
not denied a county’s standing since, and the Harrison County finding regarding the standing of
a county has been observed by the Court in looking at the impact of municipal annexations on
adjacent county school districts. 10 More recently, the Court also expressly recognized the finding
that standing concerning in annexation cases depended solely on the language of the statute,
Code, § 21-1-31, “which specifically authorizes intervention by any party ‘interested in, affected
by or aggrieved by a proposed annexation,’ in order to determine whether there was a colorable
basis in fact for the intervening counties' claim. 11
Legal Authority
Having found that the County had standing to oppose the annexations, the Court in the Harrison
County case then turned to the more basic question: “Does state law permit counties to oppose an
annexation?” After an examination of applicable law, the Court found that counties do have the
authority to oppose annexations.
The Court found that common sense limits must be applied, for a board of supervisors could not
function if its every act was required to be previously authorized specifically and in detail, noting
that authority not expressly provided may be exercised if “vested by necessary implication.” For
179