Category: Supreme Court

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of November 10, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two interesting opinions today. One dealt the final blow in a lawsuit a former judge of the Mississippi Court of Appeals filed against a sitting US Congressman. The other is a case of first impression dealing with the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

James v. Thompson, 2021-CA-00458-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming dismissal of a lawsuit against a U.S. Congressman, holding Mississippi law does not provide relief for the plaintiff’s claims of tortious interference with the election and her job as a judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
(4-0: Justice Kitchens, Justice King, Justice Coleman, and Justice Griffis did not participate)

NOTE – The plaintiff’s claim stemmed from a “sample ballot” distributed by Congressman Thompson:

Carr v. Mississippi Lottery Corporation, 2021-CA-01304-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the trial court’s decisions in a case of first impression interpreting and applying the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he lawfully registered and used five domain names that infringed on the Mississippi Lottery mark under the ACPA and that the trial court did not err in consolidating the hearing for preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits, by denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, or by denying the plaintiff’s motion to dissolve or modify the permanent injunction.
(9-0)

Other Orders

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (authorizing and directing the disbursement of $20,000.00 from the Court’s Judicial System Operation Fund to the Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for its necessary work through September 30, 2023)

Manning v. State, 2020-CA-01096-SCT (denying rehearing)

Wall v. Wall, 2020-CT-01096-SCT (denying cert)

McGee v. Neel Schaffer Engineers and Planners Inc., 2020-CT-01277-SCT (denying cert)

Wofford v. State, 2020-CT-01341-SCT (denying cert)

James v. Thompson, 2021-CA-00458-SCT (denying motion for sanctions for frivolous appeal)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CT-00761-SCT (denying cert)

Harris v. State, 2022-M-00417 (vacating sentence to serve a term of life without parole and remanding to the trial court for resentencing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of November 3, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down no opinions today. The hand-down list had three orders, one was an interesting cert grant in a criminal case.

Powers v. State, 2017-DR-00696-SCT (denying the State’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Rehear the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Hold PCR Proceedings in Abeyance)

Manuel v. State, 2020-CT-00711-SCT (granting cert)

Here is the COA opinion in Manuel v. State. The dissent's contention was limited to the sentencing as a habitual offender. Specifically, the dissent concluded that the habitual-offender portions of the sentence were not supported by sufficient evidence and should be reversed under plain error review.

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (Criminal – Felony/Excited Utterance)
Affirming convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by (1) admitting testimony under the excited-utterance hearsay exception, (2) excusing a juror mid-trial for failure to disclose information during voir dire, (3) collecting the parties’ jury panel information sheets following jury selection and placing them under seal, or (4) sentencing the defendant as a habitual offender.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

The cert petition led with the sentencing issue, but also raised issues related to the trial court's finding that certain defense witnesses' testimony was hearsay and not excited utterances and the trial court's admission of State witness testimony under that hearsay exception.

Edwards v. State, 2021-CT-00259-SCT (denying cert)

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 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 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 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 Supreme Court Decisions of September 22, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases dealing with issues that occurred during voir dire. In one, the issue was an inculpatory exclamation by the defendant. In the other, the issue was two jurors’ undisclosed connection the defendant. The third opinion is a journey through contempt law.

Scott v. State, 2021-KA-01015-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion denying the defendant’s attorney’s request for a mistrial after the defendant exclaimed during voir dire that he was “guilty as hell.”
(9-0)

Note – This decision seems correct to me.

Watts v. State, 2021-KA-00873-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming denial of a JNOV after the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a denial, holding that although two jurors did not disclose that they were related to a man who was murdered by the defendant’s brother in 2006 the court did not commit clear error in determining after an evidentiary hearing that those jurors lacked substantial knowledge of their connection with the defendant during voir dire.
(9-0)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
This decision waded into a morass of contempt and affirmed the chancellor in part, reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s finding that two attorneys handling a divorce proceeding were in direct criminal contempt for missing a hearing, vacating the penalty for that because it exceeded statutory authority and remanded on that issue, and affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to the other side. The Supreme Court vacated judgment of direct criminal contempt against another attorney and remanded for proceedings on under the constructive criminal contempt standards. The Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in finding these attorneys in direct criminal contempt for violating a court order and remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced.
(6-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Coleman.)

Practice Point – Don’t miss hearings. Don’t violate orders. If you have further questions about what went wrong here or about the intricacies of direct criminal contempt, indirect/constructive criminal contempt, and civil contempt I refer refer you to the opinion and wish you the best.

Other Orders

Hamer v. State, 2019-CT-01633-SCT (denying cert)
Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CT-00728-SCT (denying cert)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-01308-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 15, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions from very different areas of law without a single dissent today. The first is a criminal case challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The second deals with the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a election contest. The third is a divorce appeal dashed on the rocks of 54(b).

Burden v. State, 2021-KA-00782-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial, holding that the evidence including testimony, medical records, and photographs was sufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

Holliday v. Devaull, 2021-EC-00486-SCT (Election Contest)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision ordering a special election, holding that the circuit court lack subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to file a sworn copy of his complaint to the Aberdeen Municipal Democratic Executive Committee within the 10-day statutory period and that the second amended petition did not relate back to the original petition.
(9-0)

Williams v. Williams, 2021-CA-00875-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Dismissing the appeal, holding that an order granting husband’s motion to enforce the divorce agreement and entering what was called a “final judgment” incorporating the divorce agreement was not a final, appealable judgment because the court had not resolved the wife’s complaint for divorce and the grounds for divorce.
(8-1-0)

Practice Point – Our remorseless foe Rule 54(b) strike again. If anything is left to be decided, be sure the judgment you want to appeal contains the magic language of a Rule 54(b) final judgment.

Other Orders

Miles v. State, 2019-CT-00895-SCT (rehearing denied)
Mingo v. McComb School District, 2020-CT-00022-SCT (denying cert)
Simmons v. Town of Goodman, Mississippi, 2021-EC-00563-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Appellate Decisions of September 6 and September 8, 2022

I was out of the office for an extracurricular conference on Tuesday. (I will issue a full refund for my failure to timely deliver those summaries.) All we got from the Mississippi Supreme Court this week is a rehearing denial and a denial of an application for post-conviction collateral relief. I have written even-shorter-than-normal snapshots of the Court of Appeals decisions below, which turned out to be almost entirely PCR and state boards and agencies decisions.

Supreme Court Orders of September 8, 2022

Chatman v. State, 2016-M-00424 (denying application for post-conviction collateral relief and warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in sanctions and restrictions on filing in forma pauperis)

Russell v. State, 2019-CT-01670-SCT (denying rehearing)

Supreme Court Hand Down List

Court of Appeals Decisions of September 6, 2022

Burns v. State, 2021-KA-00310-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth and sentencing, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s instruction on possession, and denying the pro se argument that he received ineffective assistance without prejudice.
(10-0)

Caston v. State, 2021-CA-00397-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff waived the right to challenge proportionality by pleading guilty and, in any event, failed to prove gross disproportionality.
(10-0)

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00538-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment mandating specific performance of a real estate contract, holding that the appellant’s argument did not raise issues of reversible error, lacked citation to authority, and were beyond the scope of appellate review.
(10-0)

Beasley v. State, 2021-CA-00653-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the two-prong Strickland test required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Norwood v. State, 2021-CA-00802-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PRC motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove that his due process rights were violated or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
(10-0)

Roberts v. State, 2021-CA-00998-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff’s claim as to the voluntariness of his guilty plea was procedurally barred and meritless and that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(10-0)

Wilson v. City of Greenville, 2021-CA-00316-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s untimely appeal of the Greenville City Council’s decision to accept and enforce his resignation as police chief and in granting the City’s replevin action for city equipment in the plaintiff’s possession and denying the plaintiff’s counterclaim and motions to dismiss/stay, holding that the City’s decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence and that the circuit court committed no error.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Thomas v. PERS, 2021-SA-00375-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment affirming the PERS Board, holding that the Board’s decision that the plaintiff failed to prove she could no longer perform her duties as a bus aid as a result of her workplace accident was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
(10-0)

Laurel School District v. Lanier, 2021-CA-00384-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against the school district stemming from the school district’s failure to conduct a nonrenewal hearing, holding that the chancery court had jurisdiction to consider the complaint seeking relief for due process violations and to dismiss the claim so the plaintiff could obtain the hearing he had been denied.
(7-3: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McDonald)

Other Court of Appeals Orders

Brewer v. Kemp, 2020-CA-00214-COA (denying rehearing)

Court of Appeals Hand Down List