Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 3, 2026

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today. The Court covered a lot of ground, including termination of parental rights, partition of real property, UM coverage, unemployment benefits, and direct criminal appeals.

James W. v. Jackson County Dept. of Miss. Dept. of Child Protective Services, 2024-CP-00420-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s judgment terminating parental rights, holding that the youth court judge did not err in denying a motion to recuse, that the decision was based on clear and convincing evidence, and that the youth court did not abuse its discretion admitting evidence.
(9-0: Weddle for the Court; Lawrence did not participate)

Breland v. State, 2024-KA-01022-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no merit to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
(9-1-0: Weddle for the Court; Wesbtrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Parker v. United Services Automobile Association, 2024-CA-01419-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming judgment denying a motion for declaratory judgment regarding entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff’s motorcycle going over an oily substance and crashing did not constitute “physical contact” under the policy.
(9-1-0: Weddle for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Willis v. State, 2024-KA-01203-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of three counts of possession of drugs and one count of trafficking, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion instructing the jury when the instructions were read as a whole or in denying a motion for new trial based on the doctrine of retroactive misjoinder, and holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-1-0: Lawrence for the Court; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Winn v. State, 2024-KA-01280-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy charge and that there was no merit to the claim that trial counsel was ineffective.
(8-2-0: McDonald for the Court; Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; Lawrence concurred in result only without writing)

Dupree v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2025-CC-00144-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming an MDES decision denying unemployment benefits after the petitioner was terminated for testing positive for THC, holding that there was not sufficient evidence that the petitioner violated the City’s drug policy.
(6-1-3: Westbrooks for the Court; Emfinger concurred in result only without writing; Carlton dissented, joined by Barnes, and Lassitter St. Pe’)

Sloke v. Pierce, 2025-CA-00121-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the chancellor’s partition decision, holding that since the parties agreed that the final judgment erroneously attached an improper property description.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Oates v. State, 2024-KA-00267-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that the State produced sufficient evidnece of the defendant’s sanity at the time of the murder, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a gruesome autopsy photo.
(6-4: Weddle for the Court; Lassitter St. Pe’ concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks and McCarty and joined in part my McDonald; Westbrooks and McDonald dissented without writing)

Other Orders

  • Bumgardner v. State, 2024-KA-00090-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Ward v. State, 2024-KA-00341-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Carroll v. State, 2024-KA-00481-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Fields v. State, 2024-KA-00807-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Double Issue: Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 12 and February 26, 2026

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion on February 12 (a direct appeal of a felony conviction) and one today (an annexation case). In addition to the opinions, there was no shortage of rulings on petitions for cert with a couple of grants in the mix.

February 12, 2026

Goods v. State, 2023-KA-00955-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of depraved-heart murder, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting autopsy photographs or in instructing the jury and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(7-0: Randolph for the Court)

February 26, 2026

In the Matter of The Enlarging, Extending and Defining The Corporate Limits and Boundaries of The City of Olive Branch, DeSoto County, Mississippi: City of Olive Branch v. Dobbins, 2024-AN-00749-SCT (Civil – Municipal Boundaries & Annexation)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of the City’s petition to annex two parcels of land, holding that the chancery court’s finding that the annexation was unreasonable was supported by substantial credible evidence.
(4-2: Ishee for the Court; Griffis dissented, joined by Branning; Coleman did not participate)

Other Orders

February 12, 2026

  • Walker v. State, 2023-CT-01012-SCT (denying cert)
  • Gombako-Amos v. Amos, 2023-CT-01253-SCT (granting cert)
  • Brodie v. Brodie, 2023-CT-01397-SCT (denying cert)
    Hines v. PERS, 2023-CT-01400-SCT (denying cert)
  • Martin v. Martin, 2924-CT-00222-SCT (denying cert)
  • Brown v. State, 2024-CT-00307-SCT (denying cert)
  • P.K. Loyacono, PLLC v. Raymond James Financial Service, Inc., 2024-CA-00791-SCT (denying reconsideration)

February 26, 2026

  • Howard v. Howard, 2023-CT-01029-SCT (denying cert)
  • Moyer v. Blades, 2023-CT-01180 (denying cert)
  • Swims v. State, 2023-CT-01244-SCT (denying cert)
  • Mortera v. Kona Villa Owners Association, Inc., 2023-CT-01297-SCT (dismissing cert)
  • Tauzin v. Tauzin, 2024-CT-00141-SCT (denying cert)
  • Heirs of Morsi by and through Morsi v. JB Hunt Corp., 2024-CT-00399-SCT (granting cert)
  • James v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, 2024-CT-00459-SCT (denying cert)
  • Corr Properties, LLC v. City of Oxford, 2024-CT-00665-SCT (denying cert)

February 12, 2026 Hand Down Page

February 26, 2026, Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 10, 2026 (plus a bonus decision)

This is a catch-up post from the week I took off of blogging for my oral argument on February 11. The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions on February 10 and one off-schedule opinion on Thursday, February 5. Read on for summaries…

February 5, 2026

Gray v. State, 2023-KA-01270-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence to life imprisonment but reversing the imposition of a fine, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant’s second statement was voluntary or by denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude other evidence, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, that the “flight instruction” issue was legally barred for failure to raise it in the trial court, and that there was no error and no prejudice regarding an alternate juror, but holding that there was not authority for the imposition of an assessment against the defendant as a partial reimbursement to the county for the defendant’s court-appointed counsel.
(5-5: Wilson for the Court; Barnes dissented, joined by Westbrooks, McDonald, McCarty, and Lassitter St. Pe’.

February 10, 2026

Lovern v. State, 2024-KA-01449-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and gratification of lust, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a victim’s prior behavior, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding jury instructions, that the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion in limine that would have prevented the State from referring to the victim as “the victim,” that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s limitations on voir dire questioning, that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant’s references to the tyranny of the government during closing, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to take possession of his phone to look for exculpatory text messages he alleged were missing from the extraction, that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant to calling two character witnesses, that inconsistent verdicts (acquitting on one charge and convicting on two) was no basis for reversal, and that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
(9-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court; Emfinger did not participate)

Mize v. Nunmaker, 2025-CA-00089-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment for the defendant in a breach of contract case, holding that there was a genuine fact issue regarding whether there was a binding agreement between the parties and regarding whether the claim was time-barred.
(10-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court)

Estate of Eaves: Schlesinger v. Eaves, 2024-CA-00692-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a probate matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying a request to set aside an inter vivos conveyance and assignment of a law firm based on an undue-influence argument and that the chancellor did not err by allegedly interfering with cross-examination at trial.
(8-2-0: Weddle for the Court; Wilson and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Southeast Financial Credit Union v. Brown, 2024-CA-01390-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a debt collection claim for want of prosecution, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion dismissing the seven-year-old case after there were multiple periods of inactivity in excess of one year culminating in a two-year period of inactivity, a show cause order, and a non-appearance at the show cause hearing.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

DeCuir v. City of Laurel, 2024-CC-01055-COA, consolidated with Valentine v. City of Laurel, 2024-CC-01379-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of police officers’ appeals challenging the promotions of other officers, holding that the appeal was not perfected because the appellant filed a notice of appeal rather than a petition for writ of certiorari with the circuit court as is required to obtain judicial review of a civil service commission’s decision to promote.
(8-2-0: Wilson for the Court; Barnes and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Practice Point – This one is like a Final Jeopardy appellate jurisdiction question. Here is the Court’s conclusion:

Other Orders

  • Bird v. Ladner, 2024-CA_00245-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2024-CA-00393-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Moody v. State, 2024-CA-00407-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Carter v. State, 2024-CP-013828-COA (recalling mandate and allowing pro se motion for rehearing to proceed)
  • Pedrego v. State, 2025-TS-01282-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely filed)
  • Buchanan v. State, 2025-TS-01445-COA (allowing appeal to proceed as timely)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 24, 2026

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. Three of the opinions are reversals: an MTCA/med mal case, an MTCA/personal injury case, and a misdemeanor appeal. Another appeal was dismissed for lack of appealable judgment. The three cases affirmed are a PCR case, a felony appeal, and a UM coverage case.

Varnado v. State, 2024-CP-01093-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a second motion for PCR, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the claims were time-barred, successive, and not subject to any statutory exceptions.
(10-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court)

University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Thomas, 2024-CA-01099-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing a judgment against UMMC after a bench trial in a MTCA med mal case, holding that the plaintiff’s expert failed to establish the essential element of proximate cause.
(6-4: Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton and joined in part by Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty; McDonald dissented without writing; Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald, and joined in part by Lawrence)

Practice Point – The majority opinion included this dicta regarding the duty to supplement expert testimony:

Moore v. State, 2024-KA-01129-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of burglary of a dwelling, aggravated domestic assault, and kidnapping, holding that the defendant’s speedy trial rights were not violated and that the trial court did not err in admitting medical records of the victim in the absence of an objection.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

Dillon v. Holmes, 2025-CP-00139-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Dismissing appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
(10-0: Westbrooks for the Court)

Joiner v. City of Holly Springs, 2024-CA-01085-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the grant of summary judgment for the City in an MTCA personal injury case, holding that the city was not shielded from liability under section 11-1-66 because the alleged cause of injury of the independent contract was the negligence of a City employee or under section 11-46-9(1)(v) because this is not a premises liability case and, even if it was, the condition was created by the alleged negligence of a City employee.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Heiser v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2024-CA-01042-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming summary judgment of no coverage in a UM case, holding that the trial court did not err in finding no coverage where the death was not caused by the use of the covered vehicle.
(8-2-0: Carlton for the Court; McDonald and Lawrence concurred in result only)

Reardon v. State, 2024-KM-00839-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of an appeal from justice court, holding that the problems the pro se appellant had in perfecting his appeal resulted from the justice court erroneously allowing his attorney withdraw before filing a notice of appeal with appropriate bonds.
(8-2-0: Barnes for the Court; Wilson and Emfinger concurred in result only without writing)

Other Orders

  • Edwards v. Johnson, 2023-CA-01271-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Roley v. Roley, 2024-CP-01004-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 19, 2026

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a personal injury case tried to verdict with an appeal based on a motion in limine ruling and the other is an appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

In other news, the Court heard arguments in Phil Bryant’s defamation lawsuit against Mississippi Today yesterday. If you are interested in the oral argument, you can watch it at this link.

Greer v. Key, 2024-CA-01393-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion in limine in an auto liability case prohibiting the plaintiff from asking questions or making reference to the defendant’s knowledge or the rules or the road or personal sense of safety (i.e. “reptile theory” questions), holding that the trial court’s evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion and that the plaintiff waived her argument that the verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence by not filing a motion for new trial.
(7-0: Branning for the Court)

Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Hawkins, 2024-CA-00488-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s decision denying a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the wife did not have authority to enter the arbitration agreement because admission to the facility was not contingent on the execution of the arbitration agreement.
(4-3: Sullivan for the Court; Griffis dissented, joined by Coleman and Branning)

Note – It is mathematically possible that the two vacancies on the court affected the outcome of this case. The dissent was based on three justices’ willingness to overrule Mississippi Care Center of Greenville, LLC v. Hinyub, 975 So. 2d 211, 218 (Miss. 2008).

Other Orders

  • Allen & Smith Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Merrill, 2023-CT-00468-SCT (granting cert)
  • State v. Mitchell, 2023-CT-00771-SCT (granting cert)
  • Varnado v. State, 2024-CT-00338-SCT (denying cert)
  • Cole v. Fish, 2024-CT-00508-SCT (denying cert)
  • Woodberry v. The Mississippi Bar, 2025-BR-00590-SCT (granting reinstatement to the bar)
  • Cage v. State, 2025-M-00828 (denying pro se motion for leave to file post-conviction relief, finding it frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Hand Down Page

The NCAA went down to Pittsboro; it was looking to avoid appeal

I thought I would break from my regular content and use the Trinidad Chambliss versus the NCAA lawsuit as an excuse to talk about interlocutory orders and appellate jurisdiction and practice. Note: I am not involved in that legal action and I have no information about it other than what is publicly available. Each case turns on its own facts. Nothing below should be construed as legal advice, but only general information about the rules applicable to appealing interlocutory orders. If you need to know how these rules apply to your case, I would love to speak with you about it.

As has been widely discussed, after getting no relief from the NCAA in its own arena, Trinidad Chambliss took his eligibility dispute to court. Specifically, Trinidad sued the NCAA in the Chancery Court of Lafayette County, Mississippi, of which Oxford is the county seat. Through his attorneys, Trinidad filed a Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment on January 16, 2026, asking the court to enjoin the NCAA from prohibiting him from playing for the 2026-2027 season and to enter a declaratory judgment that he is eligible for the 2026-2027 season.

The wheels of justice do turn slowly, but there are some ways to make some of the wheels turn a little bit faster. To that end, Trinidad’s attorneys filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on January 28, 2026. Both sides filed briefs and a lengthy hearing was held on February 12, 2026, in Pittsboro, Mississippi (population 202, according to the 2010 census). Why Pittsboro? Because Pittsboro is the county seat of Calhoun County, which is in the same chancery court district as Lafayette County. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Robert Whitwell announced a ruling from the bench granting Trinidad the preliminary injunction he sought. A written order was entered the following day.

I will leave it to others to write about what this means for the 2026 football season, the grounds for the preliminary injunction, the court’s ruling, and the NCAA’s attorneys’ ill-advised decision to leave court before the hearing concluded. But in light of some bad information floating around about a potential appeal of the court’s order (does the NCAA have 30 days to appeal?), I thought I would talk about something much more interesting than football: appellate jurisdiction and procedure.

So, you Lost a preliminary injunction, what happens next?

Can you appeal? The answer to this question is the classic lawyer response: it depends. But there is no right to immediately appeal a preliminary injunction.

In general, Mississippi law only allows the appeal of final judgments. See Brown v. Collections, Inc., 188 So. 3d 1171, 1174 (Miss. 2016). A preliminary injunction is a temporary order that stands until the case can be fully resolved on the merits. See Sec’y of State v. Gunn, 75 So. 3d 1015, 1021 (Miss. 2011) (citations omitted). Because they are entered before a case has been fully resolved, preliminary injunctions are interlocutory orders that are not final and appealable. Carr v. Miss. Lottery Comm’n, 314 So. 3d 108, 112 (Miss. 2021). In short, there is no right to appeal a preliminary injunction. But that’s not the end of the line.

  • Petition for Interlocutory Appeal

Although preliminary injunctions are not automatically, immediately appealable, a litigant can petition the Mississippi Supreme Court to allow an appeal by filing a petition for interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., United Healthcare of Miss. Inc. v. Mississippi’s Cmty. Mental Health Comm’ns, 335 So. 3d 1055, 1060 (Miss. 2022). This is the procedure to ask the Court to allow you to appeal any order that does not resolve all claims asserted. The grounds and procedure for a petition for interlocutory appeal are established by Rule 5 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that rule, an appeal of an interlocutory order may be allowed “if a substantial basis exists for a difference of opinion on a question of law” and appellate resolution “may (1) Materially advance the termination of the litigation and avoid exceptional expense to the parties; or (2) Protect a party from substantial and irreparable injury; or (3) Resolve an issue of general importance in the administration of justice.” M.R.A.P. 5(a). Under this rule, a petition for interlocutory appeal has to be filed within 21 days of the entry of the order you want to appeal. The effect of this rule is that the Mississippi Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny a petition for interlocutory appeal.

These petitions are specialized pleadings and must contain certain information required by Rule 5. This includes a brief, but it is not a full appellate brief. When I write a petition for interlocutory appeal, I am trying to persuade the Court to take the case more than I am trying to convince the Court that I should win the case. (That comes later, hopefully.) If I am responding, I am trying to convince the Court that there is nothing to see here.

Once a petition for interlocutory appeal is filed, the other side gets to file a response. The rules do not provide for a reply or rebuttal by the petitioner. The Supreme Court typically grants or denies a petition for interlocutory appeal with a one-page order. That order does not decide who wins the appeal. If it is denied, you carry on in the court below. If it is granted, it punches your ticket to the show and an appeal commences. Issues are designated, the record is designated, the record is reviewed, a briefing schedule is entered, etc. On rare occasions the Supreme Court will decide the merits based on the petition and response rather than proceeding with a full-bore appeal.

Importantly, the case is not stayed in the trial court when a petition for interlocutory appeal is filed. It is not even automatically stayed if the Supreme Court grants interloc. A stay has to be requested in the petition and then granted by the Supreme Court. Unless that happens, the lower court proceedings continue apace.

  • Rule 54(b) Final Judgment

Another way to appeal an order that resolves something less than all claims between all parties is to obtain an order from the lower court “certifying” it under Rule 54(b). That rule provides: “[T]he court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment.” M.R.C.P. 54(b). If this rule is not strictly complied with, Mississippi’s appellate courts will dismiss an appeal without hesitation. E.g., Williams v. Williams, 347 So. 3d 178 (Miss. 2022) (dismissing an appeal because the “final judgment” did not resolve all claims and did not contain the magic words from Rule 54(b)). If a proper 54(b) judgment is entered, your right to appeal is triggered and you have thirty days to file your notice per M.R.A.P. 4(a).

  • My Take

As of the time publishing this post, the NCAA has not taken any steps toward an appeal on the record. I don’t expect them to try to appeal the preliminary injunction. I don’t expect our seven-member Supreme Court to be inclined to grant an interlocutory appeal in this case. And even if they did grant one, a successful interlocutory appeal would probably take a year or more which wouldn’t get the NCAA where it wants to go by the time it needs to get there. I also think it unlikely that the chancery court in this case would be amenable to certifying an appealable judgment under Rule 54(b). I could be wrong about all of this, of course.

As an appendix of sorts, here are a few of the key filings from the chancery court case:

1. Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Declaratory JudgmentDownload
6. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary InjunctionDownload
22. Opinion and OrderDownload
24. Order to Show CauseDownload

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 17, 2026

I had oral argument before the Mississippi Court of Appeals last Wednesday. It was a great experience as always and the Court’s hospitality is top-notch. Nevertheless, I was in prep mode on Tuesday and recovery mode on Thursday so I punted last week’s summaries. I plan to get caught up this week. I will add another post taking a detour and talking about the intersection of Ole Miss football and appellate procedure.

For now, my summaries of the seven opinions handed down by the Mississippi Court of Appeals today are below. Of note, the Court reversed a conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal based on a Fourth Amendment violation.

Smith v. Clarksdale Municipal School District, 2024-CA-00168-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the dismissal of a petition for mandamus against the school district to reclassify a job position and for back compensation, holding that the circuit court did not err in converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment or in granting summary judgment.
(9-1: Emfinger for the Court; McDonald dissented without writing)

Seward v. Coast Concrete Company, Inc., 2024-CA-00973-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision denying a motion to withdraw or amend admissions, holding that the appellant waived the argument that the requests for admissions were served outside of the discovery deadline under UCRCCC 4.03 and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw or amend the deemed admissions.
(8-2-0: Emfinger for the Court; McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Johnson v. State, 2024-KA-01348-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting testimony from the victim’s supervisor regarding evidence of prior violence against the victim, that the record was insufficient to address the ineffective assistance claim, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

Davis v. State, 2024-KA-00794-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: McDonald for the Court)

Wilson v. State, 2024-KA-00632-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence during a traffic stop because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initial the traffic stop.
(9-1: Wilson for the Court; Carlton dissented without writing)

In the Matter of A.L.C.: Heart to Heart Adoptions, Inc. v. Williamson, 2024-CA-00052-COA (Civil – Adoption)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment denying full faith and credit to a Utah judgment terminating parental rights, holding that the Utah judgment could not be registered under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
(10-0: Carlton for the Court)

Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2024-CA-00395-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment of divorce and award of joint legal custody, holding that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in her Albright analysis, in awarding joint custody, in her equitable division and distribution of marital property, in not awarding alimony, or in denying a request for attorney’s fees.
(5-5: Emfinger for the Court; Carlton concurred in part and dissent in part regarding the child custody award, joined by Barnes, Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty)

Other Orders

  • Upchurch v. Lewis, 2023-CA-01296-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Wooten v. State, 2023-KA-01318-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Walker v. State, 2024-CP-01032-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 5, 2026

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down a stack of orders but no opinions today.

Other Orders

  • In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting Judges Kiley Kirk and Doug Crosby’s Motion for Approval of Local Rules (Motion No. 2025-3462))
  • Brown v. State, 2017-DR-01373-SCT (denying petition for PCR to establish actual innocence and constitutional violations)
  • Brown v. State, 2017-DR-01373 (dismissing the State’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute as moot)
  • Jackson v. State, 2023-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)
  • Luster v. State, 2024-CT-00014-SCT (denying pro se cert petition)
  • Lakeland Premier Women’s Clinic, PLLC v. Jackson, 2024-IA-00445-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • Ambrose v. State, 2025-DR-00745-SCT (granting motion to admit foreign counsel pro hac vice)
  • Ambrose v. State, 2025-DR-00745-SCT (denying State’s motion to dismiss)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 3, 2026

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today with four civil appeals and four criminal appeals. The four civil cases include a slip-and-fall summary judgment, an MTCA police-pursuit case, and the reversal of summary judgment in a med mal case.

White v. State, 2024-KA-00658-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment of conviction of four counts of aggravated DUI and one court of fourth-offense DUI, holding that the statute of limitations had run on the fourth-offense DUI charge, that there was no error with the prosecution for aggravated DUI based on statute of limitations or double-jeopardy grounds, and that the defendant showed no prejudice as a result of the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
(7-3: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald)

Crowley v. State, 2024-KA-00589-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of conspiracy, one count of burglary of a dwelling, and one count of grand larceny and the sentence as a non-violent habitual offender, holding that sentence was supported by sufficient evidence and that Erlinger did not apply.
(10-0: Weddle for the Court)

Norman v. State, 2024-CP-01107-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding it successive and containing substantive flaws that rendered relief improper.
(7-2-1: Lawrence for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson concurred in result only without writing; McCarty dissented, joined in party by McDonald)

Moore v. State, 2024-KA-00507-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of trafficking heroin, possession of meth, and possession of PCP, holding that the evidence was sufficient on all three counts.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Long v. Jones County, 2024-CA-00521-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the sidewalk in question constituted a dangerous condition.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Hayes v. Magee Benevolent Foundation, 2024-CA-00910-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a med mal case based on a finding that the plaintiff could not establish causation under the “loss-of-chance doctrine,” holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact existed where the plaintiff provided expert testimony that the decedent died of a heart attack, that the hospital breached the standard of care by accepting the decedent’s self-diagnosis of a panic attack, and that but for that breach the decedent would have had a greater than 50% chance of survival.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Anderson v. State, 2024-KA-00935-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Carlton for the Court)

Luckett v. Leake County, 2024-CA-00269-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment after bench trial under the MTCA where the plaintiff was injured by a collision with a deputy who was involved in a high-speed pursuit, holding that the trial court did not err in apportioning 55% of the fault to the fleeing suspect.
(6-3-1: Barnes for the Court; Wilson, McCarty, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing)

Other Orders

  • Cunningham v. State, 2023-KA-01213-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Saddler v. State, 2024-CP-00099-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Hall v. Mitchell, 2024-CA-00667-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Hodge v. Hodge, 2024-CA-00745-COA (denying rehearing)
  • UMMC v. Giddens, 2024-CA-00842-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of January 29, 2026

The Magnificent Seven of the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion today in a direct criminal appeal while the cert-denial machine hums along.

Williams v. State, 2024-KA-01050-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of first-degree murder and four counts of aggravated assault, holding that the convictions were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(7-0: Ishee for the Court)

Other Orders

  • Younger v. Southern, 2022-CT-01228-SCT (denying cert)
  • Estate of Anderson: Brown v. Fitzgerald, 2023-CT-01131-SCT (denying cert)
  • Mangum v. State, 2023-CT-001198-SCT (denying cert)
  • Briggs v. Jackson, 2023-CT-01241-SCT (denying cert)
  • McDonald v. Pruwitt, 2023-CT-01312-SCT (denying cert)
  • In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2026-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $182,328.25, in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Center for Legal Services, MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, and North MS Rural Legal Services)

Hand Down Page