Category: Hand Down Summaries

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 1, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals kicked off November with eight opinions. There are two domestic cases dealing with custody and divorce, a personal injury case adjacent to a workers’ comp claim with a statute of limitation issue, two reversals in administrative cases (MDES and MDHS), two PCR cases, and one criminal case.

Jarvis v. State, 2021-CP-00930-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty plea waived his defective-indictment claim based on alleged insufficiency in the State’s evidence and that his ineffective assistance claim lacked merit.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CA-01162-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s child-custody modification order, holding that the chancery court manifestly erred by finding an adverse effect on the child, did not err in denying attorney’s fees, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel completion of a financial disclosure statement.
(4-2-4: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Smith.)

Baughman v. Baughman, 2021-CA-00074-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce proceeding, affirming denial of the ex-husband’s claim for separate maintenance, affirming the denial of divorce on the grounds of adultery, and reversing the denial of divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
(5-4-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; and Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Keys v. Rehabilitation, Inc., 2021-CA-01338-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of certain claims as barred by the statute of limitations, holding that the plaintiff’s claims against a third-party (not the Employer, Carrier, or TPA) arising from the utilization review process in the course of his treatment for a workers’ comp injury were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – A critical aspect of this decision was that the lawsuit did not arise from the denial of workers’ comp benefits:

Bowman v. State, 2020-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state medical examiner to testify about the cause and manner of death, in denying motions to suppress evidence seized at the defendant’s Mississippi property and in his vehicle in Utah, in denying a flight-evidence motion in limine and giving a flight-evidence jury instruction, or in refusing the defendant’s request for additional circumstantial evidence instructions, and that the convictions were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and were based on sufficient evidence.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

MDHS v. Reaves, 2021-SA-01133-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s order directing MDHS to reimburse the plaintiff for past child-support payments, holding that reimbursement was improper because a noncustodial parent cannot recover the child-support payments he made on behalf of his child.
(7-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second PCR petition, holding that the court did not err when it was not persuaded that the guilty plea lacked a factual basis and was involuntary, that the indictment was defective, or that counsel was ineffective.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Vector Transportation Co. v. MDES, 2021-CC-00576-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the MDES Board of Review’s determination that an employee was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the employer met its burden of proof to show that the employee’s termination was for misconduct.
(6-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and joined in part by Judge McDonald; Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (denying rehearing)

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 6, 2022 (Rewind)

I did not post summaries from the first week of October because I was out of town with my family doing something much more fun that summarizing opinions. This is a catch-up post. There was not a whole lot from the Mississippi Supreme Court that week, unless you are a digital photographer in which case it appears to have been a good week for you.

Mississippi Department of Revenue v. EKB, Inc., 2021-SA-00441-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s order vacating the Mississippi Department of Revenue’s sales tax assessment against a wedding photography business, holding that photography is not a taxable business activity (unlike film development and photo finishing) and that still digital images are not taxable digital products.
(8-0: Justice Coleman did not participate.)

NOTE – I am neither a tax lawyer nor a photographer, but this seems like quite a win for digital photographers. Here are some particulars about the photography business at issue that gives context for the decision.

Other Orders

Johnson v. State, 2015-CT-01064-SCT (dismissing cert petition)

Wayne County Sch. Dist. v. Quitman Sch. Dist., 2020-CA-00499-SCT (denying rehearing)

Butler v. State, 2020-CT-00806-SCT (granting cert)

Haynes v. State, 2020-CT-01397-SCT (denying cert)

Fluker v. State, 2021-CT-00162-SCT (dismissing cert petition)

In Re: Hon. James McClure, III and Hon. Gerald W. Chatham, Sr.; 2022-IA-00319-SCT (denying petition for writ of prohibition)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 27, 2022

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 Court of Appeals Decisions of October 25, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. There are four criminal cases including one with an interesting issue that arose when only eleven jurors were polled about the verdict. There is also a termination of parental rights case and a PCR case.

Braziel v. State, 2021-KA-00603-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and in the absence of a pro se brief, holding that there were no arguable issues on appeal.
(9-0: Judge Smith did not participate.)

C.P. v. Lowndes County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2019-CA-01739-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision terminating parental rights of both natural parents, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination and that reunification efforts were not required, that the GAL’s efforts were “suboptimal” but harmless because there was other sufficient evidence, that it was error to not inform the parents of their rights at the outset of the bearing but it was harmless since the parents were represented and exercised their rights, and that the court did not commit reversible error adopting CPS’s proposed order verbatim without specific findings of fact.
(6-4-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Maye v. State, 2020-KA-00100-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by refusing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction where the defendant denied killing the victim and there was no evidence to support the instruction and holding that there was no error in admitting a gruesome photo that had probative value.
(6-3: Judge McDonald and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

O’Quinn v. State, 2021-KA-00534-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of armed robbery, holding that there was no merit to the defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple instance of hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

ASIDE – The opinion provides a colorful description of events that unfolded in the parking lot immediately after the robbery. It reads like a scene from Raising Arizona, complete with a two-year-old in the getaway car. Here is a portion:

Price v. State, 2019-KA-01890-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and possession of a firearm by a felony, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the overwhelming evidence, that the defendant could not complaint on appeal about the denial of a motion he opposed at trial, that ineffective assistance claims were denied without prejudice, that the defendant waived arguments that the trial judge should have recused, that there was no error in several jury-related issues including the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors that was cured by retroactively polling the juror at an evidentiary hearing order by the Court of Appeals.
(7-3: Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and joined as to Parts I and II by Judge McCarty. The dissent took issue with the notion that the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors could be cured on remand by a supplemental hearing.)

Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR)
Denying motion for rehearing, withdrawing original opinion, and substituting this modified opinion affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff was procedurally barred by res judicata and without merit and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider evidence of a potential defense for the plaintiff’s 1994 conviction in sentencing him for his 2011 felony evasion.
(5-4: Judge McCarty concurred in part dissented in part; Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, and Judge Westbrooks, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Other Orders

Ford v. State, 2020-KA-00278-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Garlington v. State, 2020-KA-00392-COA (denying rehearing)
Towns v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01364-COA (denying rehearing)
Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (denying rehearing)
Robinson v. State, 2021-CP-01215-COA (dismissing appeal as moot)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 20, 2022

[For reasons unknown, when I tried to publish this post earlier WordPress would only show the title with none of the content in the body. It seems to be working now. My apologies to those who have gotten multiple emails with no content.]

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four cases today, all civil. Two in particular are of general interest to civil practitioners. One deals with whether an et seq. or “catchall” defense was sufficient to preserve the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and the other reviews a discovery order from the trial court. Then there are two jurisdiction cases: one deciding whether the circuit court (as opposed to the oil and gas board) has jurisdiction to hear claims against an oil company and the other whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear imperfect but timely notices of appeal from local government decisions.

Tiger Production Company, LLC v. Pace, 2021-IA-00315-SCT (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss on interlocutory appeal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations that an oil company put a saltwater disposal line across the plaintiff’s property without permission were purely common law claims and could not be remedied by the MS Oil and Gas Board.
(8-0: Justice Beam did not participate)

Lawson v. City of Jackson, 2021-IA-00532-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part a discovery order from the trial court on interlocutory appeal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a protective order providing that a party did not have to respond to written discovery that would not be due until after the discovery deadline but holding that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the plaintiff’s access to public records and in preventing the plaintiff from introducing any such public records at trial.
(9-0)

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:

Longo v. City of Waveland, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal in two consolidated cases where the circuit court dismissed appeals from local governments for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a notice of appeal that is timely filed but that erroneously omits a petitioner’s name has a procedural defect that does not defeat jurisdiction and can be corrected.
(5-4: Justice Chamberlin dissented, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Maxwell, and Justice Beam.)

Other Orders

Bridges v. State, 2020-CT-00816-SCT (denying cert)
SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 18, 2022

We got five opinions today from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. There are two chancery cases, one dealing with termination of parental rights and another dealing with an appeal from a judgment of divorce, distribution, and child support. There is an appeal of a summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an unsuccessful appeal from a default judgment, and a criminal case challenging the admissibility of witness testimony.

Middlebrook v. Fuller, 2021-CA-00590-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment adjudicating paternity and terminating parental rights, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not err in making that determination contrary to the GAL’s recommendation.
(9-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion.)

Hill v. Central Sunbelt Federal Credit Union, 2021-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall case, holding that rainwater on a porch did not constitute a dangerous condition where it was actively raining, surveillance video showed that water was not pudding or accumulating on the porch, and there was no evidence of other falls.
(7-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, holding that the inadvertence by the defendant’s registered agent was not a legitimate explanation justifying the default and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant had not presented a sufficient colorable defense.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that a witness’s testimony that she saw the defendant with a firearm weeks before the incident was properly admitted and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on appeal from the chancery court’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the appellant waived her right to challenge the merits of her divorce because she failed to appear at the hearing on the merits, that she waived that issue of distribution of marital assets by failing to cite legal authority to support her claims on appeal, but reversing and remanding for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Ferguson and to issue written findings concerning the reasonableness of the amount of child support.
(8-2: Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee -“If there is ever a case for waiver, this is it.”)

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (denying rehearing)
Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 13, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. The first addresses whether the use of a residential home violated a covenant prohibiting commercial use. The second opinion contains a thorough analysis of a personal jurisdiction issue (citing classics like International Shoe and World-Wide Volkswagen). The third opinion involves the allocation of sixteenth-section funds between neighboring school districts. The Court also handed down an en banc order on a motion for leave to file successive petition for PCR that is linked below.

Scioto Properties SP-16, LLC v. Graf, 2021-CA-00525-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s holding that a for-profit LLC used a home commercially, holding that the “leas[ing] of the home for the specific and sole purpose of providing the residential support services itself and being compensated for doing so through Medicaid” violated a restrictive covenant against commercial use.
(9-0)

NOTE – The Court explained that the commercial services were “integral” and “not merely incidental” to the operation of the home and summarized the holding as follows:

Dillworth v. LG Chem, Ltd., 2021-CA-00629-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a South Korean battery manufacturer, holding that the manufacturer placed the batteries in the stream of commerce and purposefully availed itself of the market for batteries in Mississippi and was subject to personal jurisdiction in Mississippi and holding that the plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery as to a Georgia-based subsidiary of the manufacturer.
(9-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This decision is the latest full-bore analysis of personal jurisdiction and it comes from a unanimous Supreme Court. Go ahead and bookmark this one.

Jones County School District v. Covington County School District, 2019-IA-00985-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Vacating the chancellor’s ruling in a dispute over sixteenth-section income from townships shared by neighboring school districts and remanding, holding that the statute conditioning annual payment of sixteenth-section funds on the exchange of lists of educable children is constitutional and that the maintenance of the principal fund by the custodial district is subject to an action in equity for accounting.
(6-3: Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice King)

Other Orders

Ware v. Ware, 2020-CA-00702-SCT (denying motions for rehearing)
Moffett v. State, 2018-DR-00276-SCT (denying motion for leave to file successive petition for PCR)
Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-CT-00020-SCT (denying cert)
Barnes v. State, 2021-CT-00404-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 11, 2022

I did not post summaries last week because was out of town all week. I plan to do a post summarizing last week’s decisions at some point, but today is not that day because the Court of Appeals just handed down nine more opinions.

Today was a big day for Rule 4 and for workers’ comp, with two decisions for each of those subject areas. One of the workers’ comp decisions has a significant amount of analysis of the issue of whether the claimant overcame the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity. The other workers’ comp decision provides some clarity (and teeth) to the affirmative defense of intoxication. Additionally, we learned today that you should not white-out the defendant’s name on a summons after it is issued, write the name of the defendant to be served over the white-out, and then serve that altered summons on your defendant. There is also a divorce case dealing with child support, several criminal cases, and a lone PCR case.

Carnley v. State, 2021-KA-00438-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of rape, declining to reverse based on the exclusion of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement because no proffer was made and holding there was no error in the admission of expert testimony, that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, that the jury was properly instructed to continue its deliberation in lieu of a Sharplin instruction, and that the trial court did not commit cumulative error.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wharton v. State, 2021-CA-00136-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Procedure)
Reversing a default judgment on a civil asset forfeiture petition, holding that the State failed to “strictly” comply with the Rule 4 requirements for service by publication, that the respondent did not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process by failing to plead it in his answer because the answer was filed after the entry of default, and that the case should be remanded to give the State an opportunity to show good cause for failing to serve process before the statute of limitations expired.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion and Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE 1– There is a lot of civil and appellate procedure in this opinion (Miss. R. Civ. P. 4, 55; Miss. R. App. P. 2, 31). The appellate procedure ruling was interesting because the appellant missed his briefing deadline, but the Court of Appeals held that he should have been afforded 14 days to correct this “deficiency” and since he filed two days late he was within that window. This is interesting, but not a maneuver I plan to attempt.

Note 2 – I also want to point out this holding that although it is a fact-bound holding, these are facts one could find oneself bound up in.

Howard Industries v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of sanctions against the Employer’s counsel for attempting to mislead the Commission, the Commission’s finding that the claimant had overcome the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarding permanent disability benefits for her 2007 injury, and the Commission’s award of 38% industrial loss of use of her right upper extremity for her 2015 injury.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part (on the sanction issue), joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McCarty, and Judge Smith. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon the affirmative defense of intoxication, holding that the Employer’s payment of benefits did not estop the Employer from asserting the intoxication defense that was pleaded in the answer and that the very presence of marijuana in the claimant’s system raised the presumption of intoxication.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case seems to answer a question that has lingered since the MWCA was amended to add the intoxication defense about what the effect of a positive drug test that does not give any indication of the degree of intoxication. In this case, the Court of Appeals decisively that any amount of intoxication triggers the presumption. A claimant can still seek to overcome that presumption, but based on the Meek decision a claimant cannot overcome the presumption by pointing to a lack of proof of the level of marijuana in the claimant’s system.

Ponder v. Ponder, 2020-CA-01196-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding child support retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification but holding that there was no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees against the father for failing to comply with an agreed order.
(9-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Villareal v. State, 2021-CP-00440-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Carruthers v. State, 2021-KA-00654-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth trafficking as subsequent offender in possession of a firearm near a church and possession of firearm by felon, holding that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged failures to object at various points in the trial or for alleged failure to investigate or for alleged failure to stipulate to a prior felony to keep evidence of the prior felony.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Arrington v. Anderson, 2021-CA-00233-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of two identical negligence lawsuits, holding that a summons that was altered after issuance to change the name of the party to be summonsed to the defendant’s name and then served on the defendant was not valid service of process, that since process was not served the statute of limitations had expired the first lawsuit, and that the second lawsuit was not a “refiling” of the first since it was filed while the first suit was still pending.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Daniels v. State, 2021-KA-01067-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of armed robbery, two counts and aggravated assault, one count of house burglary, and one count of grand larceny, holding that the circuit court did not err in telling the jury panel that the defendant was charged as a habitual offender or in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about the defendant’s apprehension, arrest, and felony charges that immediately followed the activities for which he was convicted in this trial.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (denying rehearing)
Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (denying rehearing)
Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (granting appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief)
Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying State’s motion to dismiss appeal)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 29, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a case dealing with an attempt to collect early termination fees after a new board of supervisors terminated a service contract, a case dealing with a thorny procedural issue after a default judgment was entered on a counterclaim in an appeal from justice court, a domestic case regarding the parent’s school choice with potentially broader implications, and a criminal case addressing the weight of the evidence and improper testimony about prior convictions.

Broadband Voice, LLC v. Jefferson County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-01082-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a phone and internet company’s claim for early termination fees against the county after new slate of supervisors terminated the service contract, holding that under the plain language of the contract the fee was due on the termination date rather than the date of the notice of termination and that the early-termination-fee provision that was negotiated by the prior board was unenforceable against the subsequent board.
(9-0)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, and the county court for denying the landlord’s motion to set aside a default judgment in county court on the tenant’s counterclaim that she asserted on appeal from justice court, holding that the landlord was not in default for purposes of Rule 55 because the counterclaim was filed in violation of Rule 15(a) (re: amendment of pleadings) and Rule 13(k) (re: appeals from justice court) cannot be read to the exclusion of Rule 15(a).
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee; Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens.)

Practice Point – There is a lot of explanation of the various rules in play in this decision. Bookmark this one and re-read it whenever you handle and appeal from justice court.

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in ordering that the three minor children attend a specific public school district over the wishes of their father who was made the “final decision maker” on such matters, holding that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor use its powers “as superior guardian to make decisions that are in the best interest of children.”
(6-3: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell and Justice Griffis; Justice Maxwell wrote a separate dissent joined by Justice Coleman.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissents disagree on a big-picture issue: the relationship between the government’s role in the relationship between parents and children. Take a few minutes and read the majority and both dissents.

Moore v. State, 2021-KA-00420-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because inconsistencies in testimony did not render the verdict implausible and holding that although it was improper for the prosecution to directly elicit testimony about past convictions the error was potentially waived and ultimately harmless.
(6-3-0: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

In Re: Rules Governing Admission to The Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99012-SCT (reappointing Pieter Teeuwissen, Marcie Fyke Baria, and Gwendolyn Baptist-Rucker to three-year terms (11/1/22 through 10/31/25) as members of the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions)
Millette v. Frazier, 2022-M-00451-SCT (denying petition for permission to appeal and lifting stay of trial court proceedings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 27, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today (and one off-cycle opinion last Thursday). There are several criminal cases (including one with a “marijuana made me do it” defense), a real property case, a lawyer money-fight case, a workers’ comp case, a domestic case, and a couple of PCR cases.

Clemts v. State, 2021-KA-01013-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence which included testimony that the defendant, the victim, and others were in an argument and the victim grabbed the defendant in an effort to get the defendant to leave the house and the defendant “wheeled around” and stabbed the victim in the abdomen.
(10-0)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s post-trial motion, holding that there was no error in denying the defendant’s lesser-included culpable negligence manslaughter instruction because there was “no evidence in the record that ingesting marijuana caused the defendant to stab a man eight times.”
(10-0)

NOTE – Might need to consider keeping the reefer madness defense on the shelf.

Loblolly Properties LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CA-00767-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a HOA over restrictive covenants on lots that were purchased after a foreclosure sale, holding that the bank that purchased the properties after foreclosure agreed that the property was bound by the covenants and the subsequent purchaser then obtained the property by warranty deed that provided that the conveyance was subject to restrictive covenants of record.
(3-3-4: Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith)

NOTE – Put this one on your cert watch list. A fractured, 3-3 majority in favor of affirming carried the day, but the four-judge dissent raised some big-picture issues with the majority opinion.

Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc., 2021-WC-01261-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s ruling that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, holding that a injuries from a physical fight with racial slurs stemming from a disagreement regarding the relative merits of playing Christian rap versus country music at the worksite was not a work-related injury where the claimant also admitted that he willfully shoved the other person in a manner not necessary for self-defense.
(10-0)

Scott v. Rouse, 2021-CP-01029-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings on several divorce enforcement matters after the ex-husband faked his own death, was apprehended, and then (with the help of his mother) claimed his ex-wife had wrongful retained his property, holding that all issues were procedurally barred because they were either the subject of a prior timely judgment that had not been timely appealed or the pro se appellants had failed to designated an adequate record for their appeal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Wess v. State, 2020-CP-00704-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion asserting an illegal sentence, holding that the plaintiff’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea was without merit.
(6-3-0: Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Cooper v. State, 2021-CP-01004-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the “writ of habeas corpus” should have been denied because the plaintiff filed it in the circuit court of the county of incarceration (instead of the county of conviction) which lacked jurisdiction to hear the PCR motion.
(10-0)

Wooten v. State, 2021-KA-00737-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence for shooting her boyfriend, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence that the defendant had previously stabbed her ex-husband because it was admissible to show that the shooting of her boyfriend was not an accident or mistake and that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to continue because the defendant had not availed herself of the court’s “considerable powers” to compel the witness’s attendance, (2) sustaining the State’s objection to some of the defendant’s testimony about alleged threats the victim made a month before the shooting, and (3) not sending law enforcement to obtain a witness’s presence after defense counsel declined the trial court’s offer to issue a bench warrant.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for declaratory judgment, holding that a former partner’s claim for a greater share of proceeds from a settlement he obtained while working for the firm was barred by a written agreement governing the withdrawal, termination, or retirement of any partner from the firm.
(5-5: Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Emfinger.)

NOTE – Here is another one for cert-watch: a lawyer-fight over money and a 5-5 decision that leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00416-COA (Sept. 22, 2022) (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felonious abuse of a vulnerable person, holding that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposed jury instruction for the offense of simple domestic violence.
(4-1-5: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Emfinger.)

Other Orders

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (denying rehearing)
Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC, 2021-CA-00265-COA (denying rehearing)
McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate fees; denying motion for rehearing)
Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (granting motion for correction or modification of the Court’s opinion)
Gilmer v. State, 2022-TS-00257-COA (denying State’s motion to strike notice of appeal as untimely)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00287-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)
Rutledge v. State, 2022-TS-00677-COA (finding good cause to suspend the appeal deadline so the appeal can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List