Mississippi Supreme Court vote bans one of its own from dissent.

A jaw dropping report out in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal:

Something unusual happened Thursday at the Mississippi Supreme Court.
It may be the first time a majority of the justices voted to prohibit a colleague from publishing a dissent in a case.

In other words, Presiding Justice Oliver Diaz of Ocean Springs disagreed with a court decision and wanted to write about it. His fellow judges said, no, he couldn’t and they apparently stopped the court clerk from filing Diaz’s statement into the record.

Diaz's document also wasn’t made available to the public, as every other order and dissent are.

"My job as a Supreme Court justice is to write opinions and dissents, when necessary," Diaz said later Thursday. "I was prevented from doing so by a majority of the court."
...
Banning a justice from publishing his dissent is highly unusual, said a former state judge, who asked not to be identified.

Diaz speculates it "may be unprecedented in the history of American jurisprudence."

"I don't know of any instance this has happened," said the judge with Supreme Court experience.

Oxford attorney Tom Freeland IV was not so circumspect with his reaction:

"I have been following the Mississippi Supreme Court closely for 25 years and I have never heard of such a thing," he said Thursday.
A look at Diaz's dissent shows he argues the error of the court’s decision that the statute of limitations for wrongful death lawsuits begins at the time of the injury, not on the date of death.

"The obvious result is that a wrongful death action may expire before the decedent does.

"This judicially created rule is without foundation, and frankly, absurd," he adds in his seven-page document provided to the Daily Journal.

Diaz is another victim in his selective prosecution case in which in which he was acquitted of tax evasion charges. His case is currently being investigated by the House committee.