see also Melody Manor Convalescent Center v. Mississippi State Department of Health, 546 So.2d 972, 974 (Miss. 1989); Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Dyer Inv. Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss. 1978)
How later courts described this case
- see also Melody Manor Convalescent Center v. Mississippi State Department of Health, 546 So.2d 972, 974 (Miss. 1989); Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Dyer Inv. Co., Inc., 507 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Miss. 1987); State Board of Psychological Examiners v. Coxe, 355 So.2d 669, 671 (Miss. 1978)
- specific allegations held sufficient to require court to address constitutional question
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ebvin, J".,
concurring: I concur in the result. If I had my way, I would reach the same result more directly by striking down as unconstitutional the statute giving housing authorities the power of eminent domain. *471 Under this statute, a housing authority condemns the property of one person to provide dwellings for others. No amount of sophistry can erase the plain fact that this is taking the private property of one person without his consent, and devoting it to the private uses of others. This being true, the statute conferring the power of eminent domain upon housing authorities cannot be reconciled with the declarations of the State Constitution that all men are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to “the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor,” and that “no person ought to be . . . deprived of his . . . property, but by the law of the land.” N. C. Const., Art. I, Section 1, 17. Courts should not sustain legislative acts which sacrifice the constitutional rights of the individual to what is called social progress.