21-31-23. While Plaintiffs may be able to seek an investigation under another statutory provision, i.e., Miss.Code Ann. Section 25-4-21, they clearly could not obtain relief under Section 21-31-23 as the trial court found. II. Applicability of Miss.Code. Ann. Section 11-51-75. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs also argue the trial court erred when it failed to address the sole issue the Board had raised in its motions to dismiss. The Board, in its motions, had alleged the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ case because Plaintiffs were subject to the requirements of Miss.Code Ann. Section 11-51-75 and had failed to object to the rehiring of Jones within ten days of the Board’s October 12, 2004 decision. See Newell v. Jones County, 731 So.2d 580 (Miss.1999) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11. Plaintiffs acknowledge they had no
holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that tenday time limit to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional and an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal