Today was a lean day from the Mississippi Supreme Court. No opinions were handed down, but four orders were listed on the hand-down page. I have reposted the summary of one decision from last week about pleading affirmative defenses because I do not think the importance of heeding that decision can be overstated.
Other Orders
Booker v. State, 2018-CT-00664-SCT (denying cert in PCR case)
Porras v. State, 2021-CT-00052-SCT (dismissing cert petition in PCR case as untimely filed)
Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CT-00610-SCT (denying cert where the COA affirmed summary judgment that was based RFAs deemed admitted because the plaintiff failed to respond to them)
In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2022-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $156,119.26 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)
Reposting from last week to save a life:
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:
In case the message has not been received, consider:
Be careful out there.
Mississippi Appeals Blog 