Miss. R. Civ. P. 23
Comment
Class action practice is not being introduced into Mississippi trial courts at this time.
Few procedural devices have been the subject of more widespread criticism and more sustained attack — and equally spirited defense — than practice under Federal Rule 23 and its state counterparts. The dissatisfaction focuses primarily on Rule 23(b)(3), which permits suits on the part of persons whose only connection is that one or more common issues characterize their position in relation to an adverse party.
In 1976 the American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Judicial Conference of the United States jointly sponsored the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice. Class action practice was one of the topics considered by the National Conference (often referred to as the “Pound Conference,” in deference to Roscoe Pound and his landmark address in 1906 entitled “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice”) and referred to the ABA for follow-up study and action.
Aside from general proposals to provide jurisdictional “floors” and “ceilings” to regulate the size of class actions, greater judicial control over awards of attorneys’ fees, and replacing the “opt-out” provisions with “opt-in” requirements, no meaningful reforms have as yet been developed to render class action practice a more manageable tool. See American Bar Association, Report of Pound Conference Follow-up Task Force, 74 F.R.D. 159, 194-97 (1976); Erickson, New Directions in the Administration of Justice: Responses to the Pound Conference, 64 A.B.A.J. 48, 52, 56 (1978); Schuck and Cohen,The Consumer Class Action: An Endangered Species, 12 San Diego L.Rev. 39 (1974); Comment, Class Actions and the Need for Legislative Reappraisal, 50 Notre Dame Law. 285 (1974); Comment, The Federal Courts Take a New Look at Class Actions>, 27 Baylor L. Rev. 751 (1975); Dam, Class Actions: Efficiency, Compensation, Deterrence, and Conflict of Interest, 4 J. Legal Studies 47, 56-61 (1975).
.