Madison Taylor

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of January 19, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today and both are reversals. One is an appeal of a property tax valuation and the other is an appeal of a chancellor’s decision disqualifying an attorney under Rule 4.2 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct due to the attorney’s prior representation of a partnership in a lawsuit involving one of the partners.

Mississippi Hub, LLC v. Baldwin, 2021-CA-00935-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing summary judgment that found an appeal of a property tax valuation was untimely, holding that the appeal was timely and that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the value of the underground natural gas facility at issue.
(8-1-0: Chief Justice Randolph concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Pettis v. Simrall, 2021-IA-01253-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision disqualifying counsel under Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct because of an alleged conflict of interest, holding that no attorney-client relationship between an attorney and a partner in a general partnership can be implied from an attorney’s representation of the general partnership and that a chancellor may not preemptively disqualify an attorney for practices and proceedings that were not before the court.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Chism v. State, 2018-M-01436 (denying application for leave to file motion for PCR, finding that the filing was frivolous, and warning against future frivolous filings)

Parker v. Ross, 2020-CT-01055-SCT (granting cert)

Roberson v. State, 2022-CT-01208-SCT (denying cert)

Skinner v. State, 2021-CT-00080-SCT (denying cert)

Sel Business Services, LLC v. Lord, 2021-CT-00368-SCT (granting cert)

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CT-00544-SCT (denying cert)

Longo v. City of Waveland, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (denying rehearing)

Lewis v. State, 2021-CT-00736-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 17, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There are several criminal cases, a reversal of summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an arbitration denial, and several PCR cases.

Jones v. State, 2021-KA-01263-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial after a prospective juror mentioned the defendant’s past wrongdoing, that the verdict was based on sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be appropriately addressed on direct appeal and denying the issue without prejudice.
(10-0)

Creel v. State, 2021-CP-00977-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff was properly sentenced under the statute in place at the time of his offenses and that his guilty pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Smith v. State, 2021-CA-01259-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a motion for PCR without evidentiary hearing, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given, and that the trial court did not err in ruling without an evidentiary hearing.
(9-0: Judge Smith did not participate)

Anderson v. State, 2021-KA-01340-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of crimes in other counties under Rule 404(b) and that there was no merit to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on lack of objections to hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Hathorne v. State, 2021-CA-00306-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a motion for PCR, holding that the indictment was defective for failing to charge a crime but that the claim was procedurally barred.
(2-4-4: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence and Judge Smith concurred in the result only; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Carlton, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McDonald)

Brooks v. Jeffreys, 2021-CA-01113-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a slip and fall case, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the cleaning company breached the duty of care where the plaintiff slipped and fell on the floor of her residence that was actively being mopped when she slipped.
(9-1: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion)

NOTE – Because the plaintiff slipped and fell in her own residence that was being cleaned by the defendant, the Court of Appeals analyzed this is a general negligence action and not a premises liability case.

Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. Hancock, 2021-CA-00605-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that where a life insurance policy was voluntarily entered into, cancelled, and then reinstated via forgery of the insured’s signature, the arbitration agreement in the policy was not enforceable.
(6-4: Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Wilson, and Judge Greenlee)

Other Orders

$153,340.00 v. State, 2020-CA-01409-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 10, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. These decisions cover a wide range of areas including wills, felonies, personal injury, defamation, and adoption. One of the more interesting and potentially useful decisions analyzes the admissibility of images from Google Earth and measurements generated by Google Earth.

Perrigin v. State, 2021-KA-00858-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that the Confrontation Clause was not violated since the victim did testify at trial, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised on a PCR petition.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 2021-CA-01208-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s ruling in a will contest, holding that the word “should” was permissive and that, in any event, even if there was a mandatory requirement that one son have an opportunity to purchase a property there was sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that he did have such a chance.
(10-0)

Bolton v. Lee, 2020-CA-00344-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming a dismissal for failure to state a claim in favor of a banker and a bank and affirming summary judgment in favor of a lawyer and law firm, holding that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from recovering in a civil action on the same facts that formed the basis of their criminal convictions of tax evasion and filing false tax returns.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Pope v. Martin, 2021-CA-00367-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant in a defamation and wiretapping suit, holding that there was no error in granting summary judgment without a hearing or without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law, and that summary judgment on the defamation claim was proper but that there were genuine fact issues on the wiretapping claim.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

NOTE – Summary judgment rulings made without any accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain the basis for the decision are frustrating for litigants and parties. This is especially true when no hearing was given. There are certainly cases where such rulings make sense, but when the parties have spent considerable time and energy in briefing issues it is helpful to know why you won or lost. Without an explanation of why summary judgment was granted or denied, litigants do not have an opportunity to see where they went wrong and hone their craft. It also does not help the parties focus the issues on appeal. It is clear that Rule 52 does not apply to summary judgments but rules can always be amended.

Evilsizer v. Beau Rivage Resorts, LLC, 2021-CA-01222-COA (Civil – Personal injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the owner of a cooking trailer who was sued by an 18-wheeler driver who struck the awning of the cooking trailer, holding that the there were no genuine fact issues where the evidence showed that the awning was closed approximately one hour before the collision and there was no evidence that the trailer owner opened the awning before the accident or had actual or constructive notice that the awning was open and extending into the roadway.
(8-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Boutwell v. Fairchild, 2021-CA-01046-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming termination of parent rights and allowing adoption, holding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, that the child was eligible for adoption because the chancery court had properly assumed original and exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and that the chancellor did not err in finding that parental rights should be terminated.
(8-2-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Green v. State, 2021-KA-00613-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s lesser-included instruction for simple domestic violence because the evidence did not support that instruction.
(10-0)

Taylor v. State, 2021-KA-00721-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of violating state law by living within 3,000 feet of a playground as a registered sex offender, holding that the sex-offender-registry law is not unconstitutionally vague by what is meant by “playground” or how 3,000 feet should be measured and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but reversing because the Google Earth map used to calculate the distance was not properly authenticated and contained hearsay.
(6-2-2: Judge Greenlee and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty)

NOTES – The majority and the partial dissent engage in a collegial discussion of whether the term “playground” encompasses the property on which a playground sits or just the playground itself, the dissent arguing for the narrow construction. Both the majority and the partial dissent have interesting analyses of the admissibility of Google Earth images and measurements generated by it (without much disagreement on this issue).

Colburn v. State, 2021-KA-00865-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction for sale of meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
(5-1-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald, and joined in part by Judge Lawrence)

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List

Nothing from the Mississippi Supreme Court on January 5, 2023

I was expecting opinions from the Mississippi Supreme Court today but the Court’s hand down page now says its next hand down is scheduled for January 12. Those will be the Supreme Court’s first opinions of the year, and its first since December 15. The Mississippi Court of Appeals is scheduled to hand down its second slate of the year on January 10. See you then!

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 3, 2023

Happy New Year! The courts are back in action so I am too. The first hand down list of 2023 has four opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Two are personal injury cases, one is a custody modification case, and the other is a PCR case.

Mallard v. State, 2022-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that a discrepancy in the sentencing order and transcript was a scrivener’s error not warranting reversal.
(10-0)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming judgment in favor of the defendant hospital after a bench trial in a negligence suit stemming from a fall while the plaintiff was get onto a medical transport bus, holding that the duty owed was the duty owed to an invitee and there was no evidence that the steps to the bus were not reasonably safe, that the decision was not against the weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony that the driver was in the habit of of being late, and that an objective person could not find the judge biased based on a comment she made while stepping down from the bench.
(7-2-0: Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Moreland v. Spears, 2021-CA-00714-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming modification of custody and visitation, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion by awarding the mother sole legal custody, by restricting the father’s visitation, or by not finding the mother in contempt for withholding visitation during March 2020 while the COVID “stay-home order” was still active.
(10-0)

COVID AND THE LAW – The father argued that the mother should be held in contempt for withholding a visitation that was due to occur during the March 2020 COVID shutdown. The mother testified that she tried to set up alternate times but the father refused. The Court of Appeals held that the particular facts of this case supported the chancellor’s decision of no contempt:

Cornell v. MDHS, 2021-SA-00784-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment in favor of MDHS in a case alleging that MDHS placed the plaintiff in foster care with a know pedophile, holding that MDHS is statutorily immune from suit regarding the investigation and licensing of the foster parents’ home but reversing the grant of summary judgment on the issues of whether MDHS’s failure to report allegations of abuse and MDHS’s failure to conduct required visits were the proximate cause of continued abuse.
(8-2: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes)

Other Orders

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (denying rehearing)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 15, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a criminal case dealing with a Confrontation Clause violation and the other is a judicial estoppel case that reversed the trial court because of an intervening decisions with a special concurrence that garnered a majority of the Court. The Supreme Court also granted cert in a slip-and-fall case that I had not summarized because the decision from the Court of Appeals was handed down back in June on a Thursday instead of Tuesday so it escaped my notice.

Saunders v. NCAA, 2020-CA-01146-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of claims based on judicial estoppel, holding that the plaintiff had no duty to disclose claims for declaratory relief during his Chapter 7 bankruptcy and that the dismissal of the money damages claim was in error per an intervening special concurrence that held that judicial estoppel should not be presumed and is, rather, a fact-specific inquiry that must include how the bankruptcy could dealt with the omission.
(7-2: Justice Coleman concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part)

PRACTICE POINT – Regular readers might recall a discussion about the special concurrence referenced in today’s decision. The case is Jones v. Alcorn State University, 337 So. 3d 1062 (Miss. 2022) and Justice Maxwell’s special concurrence in that case was joined by four other justices. I wondered aloud about the precedential effect of a five-justice special concurrence and then later passed along the answer. In Saunders, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court based upon the holding of the special concurrence in Jones.

Willis v. State, 2021-KA-00734-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first degree murder, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by not allowing cross-examination of the lead investigator about prior inconsistent statements but that the error was harmless, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s self-defense instruction, and that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
(6-3-0: Justice Beam concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Maxwell)

NOTE – For some reason it jumped out that both Kitchens’s majority opinion and Beam’s concurrence utilized the superior (per Strunk & White) “-s’s” to make Williams’s name possessive.

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (appointing Hon. Mark A. Maples as a member of the Complaint Tribunal)

In Re: Tavares Reed, 2017-M-01391 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding it frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Moffett v. State, 2018-DR-00276-SCT (denying rehearing and/or reconsideration)

Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi LLC, 2021-CT-00265-SCT (granting cert)
NOTE – I did not recall this case from June. I looked back and realized it escaped my notice because it was an an off-cycle hand-down from the Court of Appeals on Thursday, June 2. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a pool deck after exiting a hot tub. A 5-1-4 Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the case, holding that the evidence did not satisfy the standard to defeat summary judgment and that the trial court did not err in denying part of the plaintiff’s 56(f) request.

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 13, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today. There are several interesting criminal cases and a couple of PCR cases. But the two opinions that strike me as the most significant are a med mal case and a wills and estates case. The med mal decision reversed summary judgment for the hospital, holding that the layman’s exception to the usual expert witness requirement applied. The wills case addressed the effect of a decedent’s handwritten note forgiving a promissory note upon his death by “accident or sickness” after he died by suicide.

Barfield v. State, 2021-KA-00660-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of accessory after the fact to murder and denial of post-trial motions, holding that the evidence that the defendant was included in conversations leading up to the effort to conceal the victim’s body and was present (but did not physically participate) during those efforts was sufficient; that the trial court did not err in giving instructions on aiding and abetting, accomplice testimony, or the definitions of “conceal” and “participate,” or in refusing an instruction that the defendant had no duty to disclose the location of the body to the police; that the trial court did not err by allowing certain rebuttal testimony; that the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing testimony by State’s witnesses that they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and accessory after the fact.
(7-3: Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald)

Smith v. State, 2021-KA-01104-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the entirety of the defendant’s firearms expert’s testimony but that this error was harmless and that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Holliday Construction, LLC v. George County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00667-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming trial court’s decision stemming from the County’s award of contract for hurricane debris cleanup to an out-of-state company, holding that the County’s award was illegal but not arbitrary and capricious; that the trial court had authority to allow the County to reject all bids, re-advertise, and allow re-bids for the work; and that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s compensatory damages claim since the plaintiff failed to show it was entitled to the original award of the contract.
(8-1-1: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion)

Hornsby v. Hornsby, 2020-CA-01091-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions related to child support, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the father’s request for reduction in child support, did not err in finding that the mother was not in contempt, and did not err in awarding the mother attorney’s fees.
(7-0: Judge Carlton, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith did not participate)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-01180-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing denial of PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiff did not need to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to file his PCR motion.
(10-0)

Obert v. AABC Property Management, LLC, 2021-CA-00612-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of two complaints for collection on two promissory notes, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding that a handwritten note from the decedent stating that a $700,000 promissory note would be forgiven if he died by “accident or sickness” was a holographic codicil to his will or in ruling that his death by suicide was death by “sickness” because it was causally related to debilitating medical issues surrounding his prostate cancer.
(10-0)

Clark v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, 2021-CA-00173-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital in a med mal case, holding that the layman’s exception to the typical expert requirement applied in this case where a nurse allowed a 10-day-old baby to fall to the floor and reversing the dismissal of that aspect of the suit, but affirming denial of the other med mal claims for lack of expert testimony.
(Judge Greenlee concurred in part (application of the layman’s exception) and dissented in part (he would have remanded with ruling on the remaining claims) joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Lawrence)

Practice Point – The Court of Appeals noted that the layman’s exception had not previously been extended to “falls” cases, but distinguished this case from other “falls” cases involving post-op or elderly patients.

Colenberg v. State, 2021-CA-00673-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was not sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, Judge Emfinger; Judge McDonald did not participate)

Other Orders

Gardner v. Jackson, 2020-CA-01313-COA (denying rehearing)

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (denying rehearing)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (denying rehearing)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (denying rehearing)

Jones v. State, 2021-CP-01088-COA (denying rehearing)

Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (granting pro se appellant’s pro se motion to recall mandate)

Ross v. State, 2022-TS-00901-COA (denying appellant’s pro se motion to show cause and dismissing untimely appeal)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 8, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down to five opinions today. One wades into a contingency-fee contract dispute, one is a statutory interpretation case involving the bond for appeals by former public school employees, one addresses the admissibility of a defendant’s lay testimony that he suffers from PTSD, and two are related to Bar disciplinary proceedings.

Gilmer v. McRae, 2021-CA-00028-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint stemming from a dispute over a contingency fee arrangement and its award of attorney’s fees, holding that the defendant’s attorneys (who were also defendants) were immune from suit as they were acting in their capacity as attorneys, there was no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees against the plaintiff, and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff’s amended motion to amend.
(9-0)

Greenville Public School District v. Thomas, 2021-IA-00456-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming on interlocutory appeal the chancellor’s decision setting the bond for an appeal by a former public school district employee, holding that section 37-9-113(2) does not require a bond to cover the cost of the transcript and that there was no abuse of discretion in setting the bond at the statutory minimum of $200.
(8-1-0: Justice Ishee concurred in part and and in the result)

Bland v. State, 2021-KA-00973-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding the defendant’s lay testimony claiming he suffered from PTSD.
(5-4-0: Justice Kitchen concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice King, Justice Coleman, and Justice Ishee–this concurrence opined that the exclusion was error but that the error was harmless)

Louvier v. The Mississippi Bar, 2022-BR-00205-SCT (Civil – Bar Matters)
Granting reinstatement over the Bar’s opposition.
(9-0)

The Mississippi Bar v. Petty, 2022-BD-00402-SCT (Civil – Bar Matters)
Ordering public reprimand and payment of the Bar’s costs.
(9-0)

Other Orders

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (appointing or reappointing members of the Advisory Committee on Rules)

Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CT-00781-SCT (denying cert where COA affirmed summary judgment for defendant in slip and fall case as summarized here) [*Corrected link]

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 6, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals wore me out with nine opinions today. There is something for just about everybody below including crimes, conservatorships, and contracts. One case includes a nightmare scenario where an order of dismissal was entered and the plaintiff’s attorney did not receive notice of it until well after the appeal deadline passed, and there is a special concurrence shining a beacon of hope for litigants who find themselves in this situation.

McLendon v. State, 2022-CP-00057-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary denial of a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that a proper factual basis was shown as to each element of the offense during the guilty plea.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00759-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of armed robbery and kidnapping, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on inadmissible testimony from the police chief that the defendant had been previously incarcerated for burglary.
(7-3-0: Judge McDonald specially concurred, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Westbrooks; Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.

N0te – Here is how the trial court handled the inadmissible testimony:

Owens v. State, 2021-KA-00887-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a business, holding that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence .
(7-3: Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald)

Note – The dissent argued that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and discussed the evidence that was presented. The dissent embedded into the opinion stills from surveillance videos that were shown to the jury was extremely helpful in understanding the evidence that was presented and that was being discussed.

State v. Hudson, 2021-KA-01232-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Dismissing the State’s appeal of a directed verdict of acquittal, holding that the appeal was not authorized by section 99-35-103(b) because the issues on appeal did not present the Court with a pure question of law.
(10-0)

The Banking Group, Inc. v. Southern Bancorp Bank, 2021-CA-01077-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendants on a breach of contract and fraud complaint related to fees the defendant allegedly owed the plaintiff for recruitment services, holding that there was a fact dispute over the existence of a contract.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Atkins v. Moore, 2021-CA-00780-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s final judgment approving a conservator’s final accounting, holding that the conservator had not misspent or converted funds and that the plaintiff was not otherwise entitled to relief.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Judge McDonald and joined in part by Judge McCarty)

Note – The Court of Appeals took issue with several aspects of the proceedings below, but found none warranted reversal. Here is the Court’s conclusion:

Another Note – This opinion cites a post by Jane Stroble Miller from Judge Larry Primeaux’s The Better Chancery Court Practice Blog, noting that it “provides a very helpful discussion on the need for ‘vouchers’ to support and accounting.” I fail to see a downside in favorably citing law blogs in judicial opinions.

Rhea v. Career General Agency, Inc., 2021-CA-00580-COA (Civil – Contract)
Dismissing the appeal in part and affirming in part, holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the order granting the motion to dismiss where it was not timely filed because counsel did not receive notice of the judgment and dismissing that part of the appeal and affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
(8-2-0: Judge McCarty specially concurred, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith; Judge Emfinger concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

Practice Point – Judge McCarty’s special concurrence highlights a lifeline to litigants in the unfortunate situation of not receiving notice of an appealable judgment until after the deadline to file a notice of appeal:

Note – It is a credit to the appellee and appellee’s counsel for not arguing untimeliness under these circumstances at any point in the process.

DeSoto County v. Vinson, 2021-CC-00864-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors’ approval of a landowner’s application to subdivide a residential lot, holding that the landowner’s failure to accompany the application with names of persons adversely affected or directly interested and their signatures approving the division violated section 17-1-23(4).
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in the result only without separate written; Judge Wilson dissented)

Burchett v. State, 2021-KA-00776-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of murder, holding that there was no evidence to supporting a lesser-included instruction on heat of passion manslaughter.
(8-1-1: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined in part by Judge McDonald)

Other Orders

Young v. Freese & Goss, PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (denying rehearing)

Simpson County School District v. Wigley, 2021-CA-00009-COA (denying rehearing)

Boyd v. State, 2021-KA-00066 (denying rehearing)

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00538-COA (denying rehearing)

McGilberry v. Ross, 2021-CP-01076 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 1, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. The first addresses the applicable standards for taking testimony of minors 12 or older in custody disputes. The other is a 5-4 split on whether a minor can be bound by a noncompete that covers intellectual property and provides for liquidated damages under the exception for contracts “affecting personal property.”

Denham v. Denham, 2020-CT-00675-SCT (Civil – Custody)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a chancellor’s rulings in a custody dispute, holding that the chancellor applied the incorrect legal standard in deciding that the children could not testify and erred by failing to record the in-chambers interviews, that a parent does not have an absolute right to call an unemancipated teenager to testify in open court, and that if one parent is permitted to present evidence of adultery the other parent must also have the opportunity to present such evidence.
(9-0)

NOTE – This opinion has an interesting discussion of the tender years exception as it applies to teenagers on page 13:

Watercolor Salon, LLC v. Hixon, 2021-IA-01151-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of a salon’s motion for TRO and preliminary injunction against a former employee who was 20-years-old when she signed a noncompete, holding that it was not fundamentally a contract affecting personal property and that it was unenforceable since the former employee disaffirmed the contract.
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis.)

NOTE – Here is the Court’s summary of its rationale for its holding that the employment contract was not a contract “affecting personal property”:

Other Orders

Loden v. State, 2002-DP-00282-SCT (granting motion to set execution date)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CT-00214-SCT (denying cert)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (denying rehearing)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CT-00517-SCT (denying cert)

Pickle v. State, 2021-CT-00972-SCT (denying cert)

Luster v. State, 2022-M-00248 (granting application for leave to proceed on filing petition for post-conviction collateral relief in the trial court)

Hand Down List