# Edwards v. Thigpen

> Mississippi Supreme Court · March 23, 1983 · 433 So. 2d 906

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944221

## Case

- **Full name:** Leo E. Edwards v. Morris Thigpen, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections Eddie Lucas, Warden, Mississippi State Penitentiary T.B. Bruce, State Executioner and the State of Mississippi
- **Court:** Mississippi Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 23, 1983
- **Citations:** 433 So. 2d 906
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bowling
- **Judges:** Bowling, Broom, Opinion's, Robertson
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944221

## Opinion text

The majority opinion's footnote number 1 correctly sets out a part of the confusion that now exists in the practice of law in the various courts of this state. Many members of the bar have tried strenuously to prevent this confusion, but to no avail. I suspect that most of them have now given up.
For a number of years, certain segments of the bar and certain law professors have strenuously worked for and are just about to succeed in turning our state courts into federal courts. In making this effort, what was once an enviable, simple court procedure and program in this state has turned into the confusion recited in the majority opinion's footnote. This state once was the envy of other states in the simplified procedure our courts enjoyed. We are now being turned into federal courts at a time when many federal authorities, including Chief Justice Burger of the United States Supreme Court, are trying to do something to simplify the federal court logjam. We have adopted procedures that they now think outmoded. The principle of having to change things as time goes by sometimes is adverse when it is changed just to use that word and not for any benefit.
The footnote states "obviously there is a need for a revision of the rules and statutes to streamline and clarify, etc." I agree with this statement thoroughly, but suggest that the revision be returned to the simple court procedures we had prior to the movement for change just for the sake of change.
DAN M. LEE, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion. *Page 911

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9944221. Public record. Not legal advice.