Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fairley v. George County

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 2004No. 2003-CA-00320-SCTPublished

1Concurrence

¶ 18. I respectfully disagree with the majority's view that Fairley's letter did not substantially comply with the notice provision of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11(2). Furthermore, the letter in Reaves ex rel. Rousev. Randall, 729 So.2d 1237 (Miss. 1998), submitted to meet the notice provision of the MTCA as prescribed by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11 is virtually identical to the letter provided by Fairley's attorney to the Board in the case sub judice. In Reaves, we found that the letter substantially complied. Based on the similarity of the facts of Reaves to the case at bar, I must disagree…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Pruett v. City of RosedaleMississippi Supreme Court · 1982
  2. LW v. McComb Separate Mun. School Dist.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Carr v. Town of ShubutaMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Jones v. Mississippi Dept. of Transp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Reaves Ex Rel. Rouse v. RandallMississippi Supreme Court · 1998

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API