Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 1995),
the Mississippi attorney general has joined with state legislators to challenge the governor’s veto of appropriation bills and to seek a declaratory judgment as to the validity of a Constitutional amendment.
Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Education v. Ray, 809 So.2d 627 (Miss. 2002)
Attorney general of Mississippi must approve in writing before one state agency sues another.
Hood v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 537 (S.D. Miss. 2006)
The Attorney General of Mississippi filed suit in state court against Microsoft, alleging monopolization by the company which resulted in damages to the state as purchaser and also representing Mississippi customers as parens patriae. Microsoft sought removal to federal district court on the grounds of diversity, arguing that with respect to the parens claims, the…
Hood v. Microsoft Corp., 428 F.Supp.2d 537, 546 (S.D. Miss. 2006)
The attorney general of Mississippi brought parens patriae antitrust claims. The federal court held, “This type of prospective relief goes beyond addressing the claims of previously injured organizations or individuals. It is aimed at securing an honest marketplace, promoting proper business practices, protecting Mississippi consumers, and advancing Mississippi’s interest in the economic well-being of its…
Hood ex rel. State Tobacco Litigation v. State by Barbour, 958 So. 2d 790 (Miss. 2007)
The Governor and the state Medicaid agency sought to overturn a trial court order which had directed that $20 million per year from the state’s settlement with the tobacco companies be provided to a private, non-profit entity. The Attorney General declined to bring the case. The court held that the Attorney General “is indeed the…
Pickering v. Langston Law Firm, No. 251-07-1258 (Chancery Ct., Hinds Cty, Miss., Feb. 11, 2010)
The state auditor’s office sued the state attorney general’s office over the payment of outside counsel from a $107 million settlement. The Auditor’s office believed that the attorney general did not have the right to allocate the money (won by the state) to outside, private counsel.
Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 744 F. Supp. 2d 590 (N.D. Miss. 2010)
In a Mississippi case in which the attorney general sued a pharmaceutical manufacturer for alleged false statements, the court stated, “the Attorney General is a constitutional officer possessed of all the power and authority inherited from the common law as well as that specifically conferred upon him by statute. This includes the right to institute,…
Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. Microsoft, No. C2004-1542 (Chancery Ct. Hinds Cty., Miss., April 28, 2010)
The state auditor challenged the award of attorneys’ fees, on the grounds that such an award must come “out of the attorney general’s contingent fund, or out of any other funds appropriated to the attorney general’s office.” The court distinguished between appropriated funds and those from the “attorney general’s contingent fund,” which is not defined…
Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, USA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118667, (M.D. Fla. 2012)
Private plaintiffs filed a class action against Capitol One Bank. The parties reached a settlement, which was approved by the federal district court in Florida. The settlement covered natural persons in the United States who had enrolled in or been charged for Payment Protection by Capital One. A year and a half after the settlement…
Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-60686 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013)
The Fifth Circuit first noted that CAFA applies to a “mass action” where the monetary claims of 100 or more persons involve common questions of law or fact. The statute provides “[J]urisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action “exceed the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and…
