The Mississippi Supreme Court waited until I was out of town last week to unleash its largest batch of opinions of the year. Six opinions were handed down on Thursday, including one of my cases which was on interlocutory appeal for a service of process issue. There is also one direct criminal appeal, two breach of contract cases (one trial and one summary judgment), an election contest, and a statute of limitations case.
The Court also adopted a new rule of evidence that is “residual exception” to the rule against hearsay.
Unruh v. Johnson, 2024-IA-00028-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process, holding that the trial court erred by granting the plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time to serve process because the plaintiff could not show “good cause” where both the motion for enlargement of time and the first service attempt came one day after the 120-day service period ended and the plaintiff failed to articulate a legitimate basis for failing to attempt to timely serve process, holding that filing the motion for enlargement of time one day after the 120-day period did not toll the statute of limitations, and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant.
(9-0)
Note – I represented the appellant/defendant in this appeal. I jumped in on this one with Bobby Stephenson when I joined Wilkins Patterson last summer right after interlocutory appeal was granted.
Phillips v. State, 2023-KA-01218-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the admission of statements on body-camera footage were not testimonial and statements in search warrant affidavit did not violate the Confrontation Clause, that introducing underlying facts and circumstances of the search warrant containing a comment about the defendant’s post-Miranda silence was error albeit harmless, that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply, and that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
(8-0: Randolph did not participate)
Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc., 2023-CA-00376-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming judgment against the defendant for outstanding principal and interest under an accounts receivable line of credit agreement and award of attorneys’ fees, holding that the trial court did not err by granting a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing affirmative defenses, that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are not reviewable on appeal after they proceeded to trial and litigated, that the trial court did not err by granting a motion to admit parol evidence, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motions for directed verdict and granting the plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict, that the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s jury instruction on liability, that the trial court did not err by denying the defendants’ post-trial motions, and that the trial court did not err in altering the judgment due to the jury’s disregard of the peremptory instruction and directed verdict, and that the trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and award attorneys’ fees.
(6-6*-2: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by five other justices, making it binding precedent; Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Coleman)
*Precedential Special Concurrence – With a total of six votes, Maxwell’s special concurrence is precedent and provides significant guidance for the bench and bar going forward, so it deserves its own summary. The special concurrence held that the trial court erred in granting a blanket ruling against all of the defendants’ affirmative defenses, specifically holding that Horton does not apply to “all” affirmative defenses, only those that would have terminated litigation if asserted earlier.
The concurrence explained:
Footnote 11 was also noteworthy:
Final Note – The dissent argued for limiting the Horton doctrine to the issue of asserting the right to arbitration.
Housing Authority of the City of Yazoo City, Mississippi v. Billings, 2023-IA-00975-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the trial court’s order denying the Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment on a breach of contract claim against it, holding that none of the alleged terms of the employment contract were contained in the Housing Authority board’s minutes, and rendering judgment in favor of the Housing Authority.
(9-0)
Gavin v. Evers, 2024-EC-00061-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in an election contest, holding that the trial court did not err in considering the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment simultaneously, did not err in excluding an affidavit that was not based on the affiant’s personal knowledge, did not err in finding no genuine issue of material fact in the voting irregularities claim, did not err by finding that the prevailing candidate met the two-year residency requirement, and did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration and request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(9-0)
Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs, 2023-IA-00617-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the county court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the trial court erred in finding the three-year statute of limitations applied where the complaint stated only a claim of defamation which is subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
(5-4)
Other Orders
- Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-00665-SCT (denying cert)
- Law Will and Testament of Prichard: Martin v. Arceneaux, 2022-CT-01035-SCT (denying cert)
- Wilson v. State, 2023-CT-00070-SCT (dismissing pro se cert petition as untimely)
- Wallace v. State, 2023-CT-00071-SCT (denying cert)
- NCAA v. Farrar, 2023-IA-00282-SCT (denying rehearing)
- In Re: Capitol Complex Improvement District Inferior Court, 2025-M-00007-SCT (granting motion to withdraw petition to adopt local rules of CCID Court)
- In Re: Mississippi Rules of Evidence, 89-R-99002-SCT (granting motion to adopt Mississippi Rule of Evidence 807) Here is the text of the new rule:
Mississippi Appeals Blog 