Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Arceo v. Tolliver

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 2009No. 2008-CA-00224-SCTPublished

1ConcurrenceRandolph, Justice

¶ 51. I agree with the Majority that Tolliver’s suit should have been dismissed with prejudice. However, I reject the Majority’s determination that this “situatio[n] falls within the purview of the remedial savings clause.” A “duly commenced” action is essential to trigger application of the “savings statute.” Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-69 (Rev.2003). In the absence of compliance with the pre-suit-notice requirements of Mississippi Code Section 15-1-36(15), a necessary “condition precedent” to filing suit thereunder, Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135, 139 (Miss.2008), no “duly commenced” action may…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Watters v. StriplingMississippi Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Arceo v. TolliverMississippi Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Wimley v. ReidMississippi Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, INC.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Crawford Com. Const. v. Marine Ind. Res. Ins.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1983

6 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