The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on Tuesday. It was an eclectic mix, including a workers’ comp case, a dysfunctional two-member LLC , a wrongful death case against a sheriff’s deputy, and an inmate’s request for removal of a rule violation report.
Holloway v. King, 2021-CP-01351-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the denial of an inmate’s request for the removal of a rule violation report, holding that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction because the petitioner did not comply with the notice requirements of UCRCCC 5.04.
(6-4: McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks, McDonald, and Lawrence.)
Myrick v. UMMC, 2021-WC-01401-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming MWCC order, holding that there was substantial, credible evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the Employer/Carrier overcame the presumption of permanent total disability and that the claimant’s post-injury back surgery was not related to her compensable back injury.
(7-3-0: Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)
Colson v. Warren, 2021-CA-01408-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming on direct and cross appeal the chancery court’s decisions denying a claim to dissolve a two-member LLC, holding that the two members should cooperate in drafting and implementing an operating agreement and opening a bank account to deposit rental revenue checks payable to the LLC that had been piling up.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)
Renfroe v. Parker, 2021-CA-01048-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the law-enforcement defendants in a wrongful death suit after a suspect was killed by a deputy, holding:
1. Res judicata did not bar the plaintiff’s state law tort claims after the federal district court dismissed her 1983 claims with prejudice and her state law claims without prejudice.
2. The deputy and the sheriff were entitled to immunity on the official-capacity claims
3. Collateral estoppel barred the claims for IIED, assault, and battery because the federal district court found that the deputy’s use of force was “objectively reasonable.”
4. Even if collateral did not bar the IIED, assault, and battery claims, the plaintiff did not come forward with evidence to defeat summary judgment.
(7-2: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)
NOTE – According to testimony, the deputy shot the suspect after the suspect charged at the deputy, withstood a taser (pulling the electrodes out of his chest), had a physical altercation with the deputy, and then charged at the deputy a second time. The fact that the suspect did this while wearing pajama pants did not sway the courts at any level.
Other Orders
Green v. State, 2021-KA-01019-COA (rehearing denied)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 