The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions yesterday with something for just about everyone. Read on to find yours.
Estate of Douglas v. Green, 2022-CA-00365-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming on direct appeal and cross appeal in an ongoing estate saga, holding that the argument that interest should have been awarded on the return of insurance proceeds was procedurally barred, the limited award of attorney’s fees was within the trial court’s discretion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order the return funds to a joint account, and the cross-appeal was procedurally barred because it did not provide any legal support.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Stewart v. Stewart, 2022-CA-01122-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision on the father’s motion to modify or terminate child support, holding that the father’s obligation to pay for college under the PSA extended past the children turning 21.
(10-0)
White v. White, 2022-CP-00823-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s decision imposing a constructive trust and ordering the transfer of a parcel of property, reversing the chancery court’s order in limine restricting the defendant from proving affirmative defenses asserted in his answer to the initial complaint and vacating the final judgment imposing a constructive trust, while also affirming the chancery court’s determination that some of the defendant’s payments were voluntary but reversing the determination that all of the payments were voluntary.
(8-2-0: Carlton and Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Johnson v. State, 2022-KA-00920-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of trafficking Vyvanse, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-2-0: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Rambo v. Kelly Natural Gas Pipelines, LLC, 2023-WC-00402-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision denying benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was a traveling employee but that he was not in the course of his employment when he was returning to work after a personal, unauthorized mid-week trip home.
(6-4: Carlton dissented, joined by Lawrence, McCarty, and Smith)
Practice Point – This is a friendly reminder that “course and scope” is not the test for workers’ comp cases. The MWCA casts a wider compensability net than “course and scope.” Generally, compensation must be paid for injuries “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-7.
Bell v. State, 2023-CP-00631-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion because the petitioner failed to present evidence any evidence that he had been rehabilitated.
(8-2-0: Lawrence and Smith concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Nettles v. Nettles, 2023-CA-00041-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision granting the husband’s motion for involuntary dismissal, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the wife did not prove that she was entitled to a divorce based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment by a preponderance of the evidence.
(6-4: Carlton, Westbrooks, McDonald, and Lawrence dissented without seprate written opinion)
Loving v. MS Eye Care, P.A., 2023-CA-00566-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a premises liability case, holding that there was no evidence that the chair the plaintiff fell backwards on was defective or unreasonably dangerous.
(9-0: Wilson did not participate)
Blackwell v. Reed, 2022-CP-01037-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying the ex-husband’s ppetition to terminate or modify alimony, holding that the issues were procedurally barred for failure to cite legal authority or relevant parts of the record and that the appeal otherwise lacked merit.
(10-0)
Other Orders
Kirk v. Newton, 2021-CT-00683-COA (denying motion to amend judgment)
Havercome v. State, 2022-CA-00391-COA (denying rehearing)
Phillips v. MDOC, 2022-SA-00392-COA (denying rehearing)
Agee v. State, 2022-KA-00994-COA (denying pro se “request to proceed with petition for rehearing” and dismissing pro se “request to proceed with petition for post-conviction relief”)
Bumpous v. Tishomingo County School District, 2022-CA-01010-COA (denying rehearing)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CP-01186-COA (denying rehearing)
Lawson v. State, 2023-TS-01384-COA (dismissing appeal)
Gates v. State, 2024-TS-00074-COA (allowing appeal to proceed upon finding that show-cause response was well taken)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 