[For reasons unknown, when I tried to publish this post earlier WordPress would only show the title with none of the content in the body. It seems to be working now. My apologies to those who have gotten multiple emails with no content.]
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four cases today, all civil. Two in particular are of general interest to civil practitioners. One deals with whether an et seq. or “catchall” defense was sufficient to preserve the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and the other reviews a discovery order from the trial court. Then there are two jurisdiction cases: one deciding whether the circuit court (as opposed to the oil and gas board) has jurisdiction to hear claims against an oil company and the other whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear imperfect but timely notices of appeal from local government decisions.
Tiger Production Company, LLC v. Pace, 2021-IA-00315-SCT (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss on interlocutory appeal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations that an oil company put a saltwater disposal line across the plaintiff’s property without permission were purely common law claims and could not be remedied by the MS Oil and Gas Board.
(8-0: Justice Beam did not participate)
Lawson v. City of Jackson, 2021-IA-00532-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part a discovery order from the trial court on interlocutory appeal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a protective order providing that a party did not have to respond to written discovery that would not be due until after the discovery deadline but holding that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the plaintiff’s access to public records and in preventing the plaintiff from introducing any such public records at trial.
(9-0)
Pruitt v. Sargent, 2021-CA-00511-SCT (Civil – Personal injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that the defendants waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to adequately plead it in their answer.
(6-2-0: Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice Griffis; Justice Beam concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)
PRACTICE POINT – The Supreme Court laid down some black-letter law today on pleading the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and its reasoning probably applies to other affirmative defenses. The Court took a look at the defenses that were pleaded and found they fell short of the standard:
Then, the Court said flatly that et seq. didn’t cut it:
Longo v. City of Waveland, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal in two consolidated cases where the circuit court dismissed appeals from local governments for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a notice of appeal that is timely filed but that erroneously omits a petitioner’s name has a procedural defect that does not defeat jurisdiction and can be corrected.
(5-4: Justice Chamberlin dissented, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Maxwell, and Justice Beam.)
Other Orders
Bridges v. State, 2020-CT-00816-SCT (denying cert)
SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 