Curet v. City of Long Beach, 52707

• Decision Date: 27 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 52707,52707
• Citation: 399 So.2d 1351
• Parties: In re Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Long Beach, Mississippi. Mrs. Marjorie CURET v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1351

399 So.2d 1351

In re Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Long Beach, Mississippi Mrs. Marjorie CURET v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, Mississippi.

No. 52707.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 27, 1981.

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1981.

Jerry O. Terry, Greaves, Terry & Sheely, Gulfport, for appellant.

Larry L. Lenoir, Gulfport, C. York Craig, Jr., Watkins, Ludlam & Stennis, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and LEE and HAWKINS, JJ.

HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal by Mrs. Marjorie Curet and others from a decree of the Chancery Court of Harrison County approving, ratifying and confirming an ordinance extending and enlarging the municipal corporate limits of Long Beach. We affirm.

Prior to the adoption of the ordinance on August 14, 1979, expanding the city limits, Long Beach comprised 2,050 acres, approximately three and one-half square miles. Its south boundary is the Gulf, its eastern boundary line coincided with the west municipal boundary line of the City of Gulfport, and its western boundary coincided with the east municipal boundary line of the City of Pass Christian. The proposed area of annexation contains 4,350 acres, or approximately seven square miles to the north. ¹

The city meticulously and thoughtfully prepared its case for presentation to the chancery court, and in a trial lasting some nine days, by lay and expert testimony, as well as voluminous documents and exhibits, clearly adduced substantial evidence under the statute and previous rulings of this Court to justify its expansion. The chancellor, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, rendered a detailed opinion completely endorsing this expansion.

The two main assignments of error (and the only ones we need note on this appeal) are the court erred in approving the extension ordinance, or at least in failing to diminish the area sought to be annexed. The proposed area of annexation, while quite large in comparison with the present corporate limits, was found by the chancellor to be reasonable. There is no need to specifically review the voluminous evidence in this case. Suffice it to say in his finding the chancellor was abundantly supported by the evidence under the criteria established in previous cases of this Court and the statute. See: City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland, 388 So.2d 152 (Miss.1980); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 623 (Miss.1978); Dodd v. City of Jackson, 233 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (19...