Category: Supreme Court

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 9, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today. Topics include public project bidding, summary judgment in a property damage case, conversion by the owner of a collection agency, an appeal of a post summary judgment decision granting a Rule 60(b) motion based on fraud, a unanimous pro se PCR appeal win, and an election contest.

The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Eutaw Construction Company, Inc., 2020-IA-00881-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that reversed the MSPA’s award of a project to the lowest bidder whose bid contained multiple errors and awarded the project to the second lowest bidder, holding that the lowest bidder’s errors were minor, the intended correct bid was evident on the face of the bid, and the corrected bid by the lowest bidder was a decrease in price.
(All justices concurred.)

Hardin v. Town of Leakesville, Mississippi, 2020-CA-01164-SCT (Civil – Property Damages/Summary Judgment/Proximate Cause)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of Leakesville, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that water that had accumulated under her house was caused by an act or omission attributable to the town.
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion contains a helpful discussion of the exacting standard that applies when a plaintiff seeks to prove causation by circumstantial evidence:

McGee v. Comprehensive Radiology Services, PLLC, 2021-CA-00666-SCT (Civil – Torts/Conversion/Fraud)
Affirming the chancellor’s finding that the president of a collections agency was individually and personally liable for $785,549.71 that she directed her company to delay remitting to a radiology group while also billing for and receiving commissions for collecting that money, holding that while the tort of conversion cannot be used to recover a mere debt it can be used to recover identifiable money belonging to the plaintiff which is what occurred here.
(All justices concurred.)

Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi v. Davis, 2020-IA-01244-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Negligence/Rule 60(b))
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor the casino in a personal injury case stemming from a fall from a casino chair due to the lack of evidence that the casino breached a duty. The plaintiff then filed a motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(1) alleging that the defendant committed fraud in its 30(b)(6) deposition based upon information the plaintiff discovered in an unrelated case about another chair at the casino. The circuit court granted the motion to reopen based on fraud and the defendant petitioned for interloc which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff “fell far short of satisfying all of the elements of fraud” and because this case did not present the requisite “exceptional circumstances” for relief under Rule 60(b).
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion has a helpful summary of what is required to prove fraud under Rule 60(b)(1):

Magee v. State, 2019-CT-01794-SCT (Civil – PCR/Involuntary Guilty Plea)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s pro se PCR motion, holding that the circuit court granted an evidentiary hearing but failed to address the issue of whether the plaintiff’s guilty plead was involuntary because the plaintiff was affirmatively misinformed about the possibility of early release by his trial attorney and failed to allow the plaintiff to call witnesses or present evidence.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Meredith v. Clarksdale Democratic Executive Committee, 2021-EC-00305-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the trial court’s decision agreeing with the CDEC’s decision that a mayoral candidate resided at a lake house outside of the city limits rather than a funeral home apartment within the city limits, holding that the would-be candidate failed to prove by “absolute proof” that he met the residency requirement on or before the applicable deadline.
(Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result) (“It is not in the court’s bailiwick to impose its judgment for that of the Legislature.”)

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting response to order granting motion for appointment of counsel for representation for successive petition for post-conviction relief filed by the Circuit Court of Hinds County)

Havard v. State, 2018-CA-01709-SCT (granting motion to file motion for attorney fees and expenses under seal)

Walker v. State, 2020-CT-00228-SCT (denying cert)

McLemore v. State, 2016-M-00364 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court with a warning against future frivolous filings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 2, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court gave us one opinion today holding that an automobile is not a deadly weapon that is illegal to concealed-carry under section 97-37-1. Read on for context…

Altman v. State, 2021-IA-00419-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Youth Court/Jurisdiction/Concealed Carry?)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that because an automobile cannot be “carried” or “concealed on or about one’s person,” the youth court has exclusive jurisdiction over a juvenile offender who commits a felony using an automobile.
(All justices concurred).

CONTEXT – The youth court has exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings concerning a delinquent child, subject to some exceptions. One exception applies when a child commits a felony with a deadly weapon that is illegal, under section 97-37-1, to carry in a concealed manner. The defendant was seventeen when he allegedly drove his car intentionally into a car carrying his mother, siblings, and step father. The defendant was indicted for four counts of aggravated assault. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the youth court had exclusive jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal and reversed the circuit court, reasoning:

Other Orders

Godbolt v. State, 2020-DP-00440-SCT (denying pro se motion for the appointment of new counsel by defendant convicted of multiple counts of capital murder and sentenced to death stemming from a killing rampage in Lincoln County in 2017)

Arrington v. State, 2020-M-00571 (denying pro se application for leave to proceed in the trial court and restricting the petitioner from filing further such applications in forma pauperis)

Varner v. Anderson, 2021-M-01390-SCT (denying motion to reconsider order denying petition for interlocutory appeal and denying motion to dismiss said motion for reconsideration)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of May 26, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today and each packs a punch. Webb v. State has a thorough and concise analysis of issues surrounding the authentication of screenshots of Snapchat messages. Ware v. Ware is a multifaceted, chancery court battle-royale among family of the decedent involving primarily the fate of the decedent’s shares of family corporations.

Webb v. State, 2021-KA-00082-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Authentication of Social Media)
Affirming conviction of one count of fondling and three counts of sexual battery of two underage girls, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in a slew of evidentiary rulings including (1) the admission of prior sexual abuse by the defendant; (2) the admission of a photo of an entry from a diary belonging to one of the victims; (3) the admission of screenshots of Snapchat messages over an authentication and unfair prejudice challenges; and (4) the admission of text messages between the defendant and one victim’s mother. The Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the defendant’s final argument that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence.
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This is a case to bookmark for authenticating social media content or other screenshot material. The Supreme Court took a deep dive into the issue of authenticating the Snapchat screenshots at issue in this case. The screenshots at issue were taken by one victim’s mother, but the mother did not provide authenticating testimony. The Court analogized screenshots to photos, and held that screenshots do not have to be authenticated by the person who took the screenshot:

[Legal writing sidebar: I like Justice Maxwell’s use of “And” to start the third sentence. We were all told at some point that one should never begin a sentence with a conjunction. But I think doing so here effectively added clarity and concision to the opinion.]

The defendant also asserted that the State failed to offer an adequate foundation for the screenshots because they did not prove that he was on the “other side” of the Snapchat communications with one of the victims. The Supreme Court noted that something more than a profile photo and an account name is required, but that “something more” can be established in many ways including circumstantial evidence:

Ware v. Ware, 2020-CA-00702-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part a direct appeal and affirming in part and dismissing as moot in part a cross-appeal of a messy, consolidated estate case and corporate dissolution case between and among a surviving wife and the three children (a son and two daughters) she had with the decedent. The decedent owned 25% each of four family corporations. His will placed most of his assets including these shares into testamentary trusts for which his wife and three children were trustees, and the primary beneficiary was the wife with limited distribution potential to the children. Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued over how to manage the corporations and dispersion of the decedent’s assets.

The son filed for dissolution of the corporation, the chancellor denied the daughters’ motions to join/intervene, the chancellor appointed a receiver by agreed order, and the chancellor ultimately ordered that the shares by offered for sale to the corporations and then the dissolution of the corporations. The daughters appealed the denial of their motions to join/intervene and the wife appealed “a multitude of issues.” The son cross-appealed the chancellor’s net asset value determination date and methodology.

The Mississippi Supreme Court (1) reversed the chancellor’s ruling that the estate must offer the shares to the corporation prior to transferring them to the trusts, (2) affirmed the chancellor’s denial of the motions to intervene, (3) affirmed the chancellor’s decision to dissolve the corporations, and (4) reversed the dissolution judgment to the extent that it allowed the corporations to purchase shares from the estate. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case back to the chancery court to determine how to distribute the money from the sales of the corporations in which the estate holds 25% of the corporate shares.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Note – There is a lot more happening in the details of this opinion that I am not going to wade into here. If something mentioned above touches your practice areas, you will need to dive in yourself.

Other Orders

Grayson v. State, 1998-DP-01782-SCT (dismissing pro se motion to carry out execution forthwith)

Sims v. Sims, 2020-CT-00327 (denying cert) (grandparents, if you want to spend a lot of money to accomplish little more than firebombing your family, suing your children for grandparent visitation may be right for you)

Westmoreland v. State, 2020-CT-00509-SCT (denying cert)

Wilson v. State, 2020-CT-00762-SCT (denying cert)

Flechas v. The Mississippi Bar, 2021-BA-01051-SCT (granting motion to accept the irrevocable resignation of Eduardo A. Flechas)

In Re: Hon. James McClure, III and Hon. Gerald W. Chatham, Sr., 2022-IA-00319-SCT (treating petition for writ of prohibition filed by Circuit Court Judges James McClure, III, and Gerald W. Chatham, Sr., as a petition for interlocutory appeal pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5; granting permission to appeal, and directing all judges of the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District are hereby to appear before Mississippi Judicial College Director Randy G. Pierce for a conference to consider the simplification of the issues and such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the proceeding by the Court, including settlement)

Hand Down List

May 19, 2022: A quiet day at the Mississippi Supreme Court

We did not get any opinions from the Mississippi Supreme Court today. I am working under concurrent briefing deadlines so I am not going to try to compensate for the lack of opinions with a creative writing project this time around.

Other Orders

Batiste v. State, 2019-CA-00283-SCT (denying rehearing)

Berryman v. State, 2020-CT-00710-SCT (denying pro se cert petition and cert petition filed by the Office of State Public Defender – Indigent Appeals Division)

Hand Down List

Last week, I noted that Justice Maxwell’s special concurrence in Jones v. Alcorn State University, 2020-CA-01238-SCT had garnered votes from four other justices. David Calder was kind enough to point to me to several cases on the topic including this one:

Presiding Justice Dickinson issued a specially concurring opinion in McDonald [v. McDonald, 39 So. 3d 868 (Miss. 2010)] tailored to the issue of guardian ad litem testimony and hearsay. Id. at 887 (¶ 65) (Dickinson, P.J., specially concurring). His concurrence was joined by four other justices, giving the opinion precedential value. See Sweatt v. Murphy, 733 So. 2d 207, 209-210 (¶ 7) (Miss. 1999) (noting that when at least four justices vote in favor of another justice’s concurring opinion, the concurrence has “precedential value”).

Ballard v. Ballard, 255 So. 3d 126, 133 (Miss. 2017) (emphasis added).

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of May 12, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today with subject matter covering capital murder conviction and death penalty, UM/UMI coverage, election contests, appellate procedure, wills, and judicial estoppel.

Johnson v. Brock, 2020-EC-00982-SCT (Civil – Election Contest/Summary Judgment)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ contest the results of a city counsel election, holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden in opposing summary judgment where the plaintiffs’ briefs relied upon affidavits that were not in the record and they otherwise failed to come forward with evidence that there were voting irregularities that led to their election losses.
(Justice King did not participate.)

Bufkin v. Geico Insurance Agency, Inc., 2021-CA-00251-SCT (Civil – Insurance/UM/UIM)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the UM carrier, declining to overrule precedent holding that an employee is not legally entitled to make a claim under their employers’ underinsured motorist coverage.
(All justices concurred.)

Note – The plaintiff argued Mississippi’s law on this question of statutory interpretation was the minority approach and urged the Supreme Court to adopt the majority view. The Supreme Court declined to do so:

McRae v. Mitchell, 2021-IA-00101-SCT (Civil – Other/Interlocutory Appeal/Appellate Procedure)
Dismissing an appeal from a non-final judgment of the chancery court, explaining that the Mississippi Supreme Court treated the notice of appeal as a petition for interlocutory appeal and granted the petition, but held that it lacked jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not filed within 21 days of after the entry of the non-final judgment.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Clark v. State, 2019-DP-00689-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence to death by lethal injection for the slaying of a convenience store clerk in Canton, Mississippi. The issues raised on appeal that the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed were:


(Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Ishee. Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee.)

NOTE – The majority opinion is 99 pages long plus 13 pages of appendices. There are 34 pages of dissents. The curt summary above does not do this opinion justice because I simply do not have the bandwidth to tackle the details of this opinion at this moment.

Estate of Bakarich v. Bakarich, 2020-IA-00339-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Interlocutory Appeal)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the co-executrices’ request based on a fee-shifting provision in the will seeking to make a challenger pay the estate’s attorney’s fees in defending challenges to the co-executrices’ actions, but reversing the the chancellor’s decision directing the co-executrices to personally pay the estate’s costs and attorney’s fees associated with the underlying motions and petitions.
(Justice King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Kitchens. Justice Beam did not participate.)

Jones v. Alcorn State University, 2020-CA-01238-SCT (Civil – Other/Judicial Estoppel)
Affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the plaintiff failed to reveal his lawsuit in two bankruptcy filings.
(Justice Maxwell [1] wrote a special concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Randolph (who wrote the majority opinion)[2], Justice Coleman [3], Justice Beam [4], and Justice Chamberlin [5], and by Justice Griffis in part. Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by justice Kitchens.)

Question – What is the effect of a five-justice special concurrence from a nine-member court? Anything other than letting future litigants know that a majority of the court agrees whatever propositions are in the special concurrence? I will look into it later, but I do not know the answer off the top of my head.

Other Orders

Augustine v. State, 2019-CT-01467-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)
Johnson v. State, 2019-CT-01801-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
Figueroa v. State, 2020-CT-00114-SCT (denying cert petition)
Piccaluga v. State, 2020-CT-00346-SCT (denying cert petition)

Hand Down List Page

One more thing – At some point early this morning this blog had its 1,000th unique visit and passed 1,800 total hits in the three months since I launched it. Many thanks to those who have visited, subscribed, and shared the blog and to those who have provided encouragement and helpful feedback. I hope that it has been and continues to be a useful resource.

Mississippi Supreme Court decisions of May 5, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One addresses whether additional discovery may be had or the record supplemented at the circuit court level on appeal from a decision of a governing authority of a municipality or county. The other is a circuit clerk v. drug court dispute over the collection of drug court participation fees.

Board of Supervisors of Jackson County, Mississippi v. Qualite Sports Lighting, LLC, 2020-IA-01301-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing and remanding circuit court’s order directing the supplementation of the record in an appeal of a decision of the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, holding that the 2018 amendments to the process of appealing a decision of the governing authority of a municipality or county as laid out in section 11-51-75 (Rev. 2018) of the Mississippi Code Annotated did not allow Qualite, who was appealing the board’s decision to the circuit court, to conduct discovery or go beyond the record that was originally before the board.
(All justices concurred.)

Thompson v. DeSoto County Intervention Court, 2020-CA-00956-SCT (Civil – Other/Drug Court)
The circuit court entered an order directing that drug court fees be paid to the circuit clerk’s office. The circuit clerk filed a petition to set aside or rescind that order, arguing that the drug court participation fee was not a criminal fine or fee and that the circuit clerk’s office was not compensated for processing the participation fee, and want not able to take a cut of it, since she had no statutory duty to do collect the participation fee. The circuit court denied the motion and the circuit clerk appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the drug court is a criminal court and that fees obtained during its proceedings are criminal fees. Therefore, it is the circuit clerk’s duty to collect drug/intervention court fees under section 9-1-43(5) of the Mississippi Code Annotated.
(Justice King concurred in result only without separate written opinion. Justice Chamberlin did not participate.)


NOTE – The circuit clerk asked for compensation on appeal. The supreme court addressed that request, but did not award compensation because the scope of review was limited to the clerk’s petition which did not seek compensation and the circuit court’s order on that petition:

Other Orders

Hartzler v. Bosarge, 2019-CT-01606-SCT (lifting the suspension of certiorari proceedings and granting the Rule 42 (MRAP) Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal insofar as the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot)

Belk v. State, 2020-CT-00465-SCT (denying cert)

Watson v. State, 2020-CT-00789-SCT (denying cert)

Sutton v. State, 2020-CP-01322-SCT (denying rehearing)

Humphrey v. Steve Holts, 2021-CT-00046-SCT (granting cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court decisions of April 28, 2022

After some sort of technical hiccup with the State’s web domain that knocked the Mississippi Supreme Court’s website offline for a spell, they are back in business. The Court handed down one hearty opinion in a wrongful death case that involves § 1983, qualified immunity, the MTCA, the appealability of summary judgment denials, and hearsay.

City of Jackson v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (Civil – Tort/Wrongful Death/1983/MTCA)
Reversing and rendering a jury verdict holding the City liable under § 1983 and affirming the trial court’s judgment finding the City liable under the MTCA for the decedent’s wrongful death. The victim was murdered shortly after calling 911 to report a prowler. The dispatcher did not tell the victim to remain on the line, in violation of the City’s policies and procedure. Two JPD officers went to the victim’s house, did not detect that the prowler had entered a window, did not make contact with the victim, and left. The victim was found dead the next day. The victim’s family filed suit under § 1983 and under the MTCA.

The 911 operator and officers got out via qualified immunity on summary judgment. The § 1983 case was tried by a jury and the MTCA case was tried “simultaneously” before the bench. The jury found that the City violated the victim’s constitutional rights to due process and awarded $1M in damages. The trial court awarded $500,000 (i.e. the statutory maximum) under the MTCA.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the City was entitled to a directed verdict on the § 1983 claim, reasoning that our constitutional due process rights do not include the right to be protected by the state from acts of private violence. Regarding the MTCA claim, the Supreme Court held that the 911 dispatcher’s conduct in responding to the victim’s call did not involve an element of choice or judgment and the City was therefore not protected by discretionary function immunity from liability under the MTCA.

There was a hearsay issue involving the defendant’s statement contained in the police report that warrants a brief discussion. The trial court admitted the police report, but with the assailant’s statement to police redacted, finding that the assailant could not be compelled to testify against himself and that hearsay exception in Rule 804(b)(3) did not apply because the statement was not being used against the assailant/declarant. Later in the trial, the court allowed the plaintiff’s expert to reply on the assailant’s statement in forming his opinions over the City’s objection that the expert had relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court did not have to address the argument that the expert’s testimony was a “conduit for otherwise inadmissible hearsay” because it held that that the assailant’s statement to police was admissible under the Rule 804(b)(3) exception after all, so there was no error in admitting the expert testimony that relied upon it.

(Chief Justice Randolph wrote a special concurrence, joined in part by Justice Maxwell, Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis. Justice Griffis also wrote a special concurrence.)

Practice Point – I found it remarkable that the Mississippi Supreme Court heretofore had not addressed the issue of whether the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed after a trial. They did here, and now we know:

One More Thing – We were this close (maybe) to the Mississippi Supreme Court addressing one of my pet issues: When a case involves an MTCA defendant and a non-MTCA defendant how, exactly, should a hybrid bench/jury trial proceed?

resolving-the-conflictDownload

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the State’s Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal in Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief)

Randle v. Randle, 2020-CT-0033-SCT (granting cert)

McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT (denying Motion Pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is hereby denied and remanding to the chancery court of Grenada County for an adjudication of a request for release on bond pending appeal in light of his child support payment subsequent to the February 24, 2022 denial of his prior motion)

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (CORRECTION: granting cert 6-0)

Williams v. State, 2020-KA-772-SCT (denying rehearing)

Morningstar v. Perkins Law Firm, 2020-CT-1203-SCT (denying cert)

Embrey v. Young, 2021-CT-91-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinions of April 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One decides an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a tire blowout case that hinged on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The other is a criminal case considering convictions for attempted willful trespass and auto burglary that addresses issues of whether the indictment was sufficient, whether evidence of other was acts should have been excluded, and whether the defendant’s “theory of the case” instruction was wrongly denied.

Darling Ingredients Inc. v. Moore, 2020-IA-01149-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Res Ipsa Loquitur)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an auto liability case stemming from the failure of a tire on the defendants’ vehicle, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because a vehicle’s tire can fail for reasons other than negligence of the vehicle’s driver or owner. Because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable and the plaintiff had no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, judgment was rendered for the defendants.
(This decision was unanimous)

NOTE: Although this opinion stops just short of specifically saying so, I read it as establishing a bright-line rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to cases where a motorist is injured by the failure of a tire on another vehicle:

This opinion is also noteworthy for its succinct summary of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and its analysis of the second element (“the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things it would not have happened if those in control of the instrumentality used proper care”) that will be useful in future RIL briefing.

Brady v. State, 2021-KA-00163-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Willful Trespass/Auto Burglary)
Affirming convictions of attempted willful trespass and two counts of auto burglary, holding (1) no error in denying a motion to quash the indictment for attempted burglary of a dwelling because the indictment adequately alleged an overt act, (2) no error in not sua sponte precluding evidence of other bad acts not related to the indicated charges, and (3) no error in denying a proposed instruction that the defense argued expounded on the defense’s theory of the case where the subject of the proposed instruction was adequately covered in other jury instructions.
(Justice Coleman dissented, arguing that the indictment failed to allege an overt act in furtherance of the attempted breaking and entering)

Other Orders

Carter v. State, 2019-CT-01854-SCT (denying cert petition)
Burgin v. State, 2020-CT-01031-SCT (denying cert petition)
The Mississippi Bar v. Sims, 2021-BD-01090-SCT (granting petition to transfer license to disability inactive status)
In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi (directing the disbursement of $160,623.66 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

In other news, congratulations to Professor Christopher Green of Ole Miss Law who was cited four (4) times in Justice Thomas’s concurrence in United States v. Madero that was decided today.

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of April 7, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today. I think Weber v. Estate of Hill will be a frequently cited case on the issue of medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. There is also an insurance coverage decision (where the court granted interlocutory appeal and then affirmed the circuit court), another medical malpractice case dealing with a hospital’s lack of liability for treatment plans of independent physicians, a contempt of youth court case, and a Mississippi Bar disciplinary decision.

Donaldson v. Cotton, 2020–CA-00581-SCT (Civil – Other/Contempt)
Vacating the a youth court judge’s order of contempt against a county prosecutor fining him for past and continuing refusal to draft youth court orders, holding that youth court judges have inherent authority to order a county prosecutor to prepare orders in youth court matters but that the alleged contempt was constructive criminal contempt and thus the attorney’s due process rights were violated. The order was vacated, the case was remanded, and the youth court judge was direct to recuse for further proceedings.
(Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

Weber v. Estate of Hill, 2020-CA-00293-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Causation/Experts)
Denying rehearing and and modifying two paragraphs (¶ 37 and ¶ 38) of the original opinion. On direct appeal, the supreme court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for JNOV that argued there was no admissible expert testimony on causation, holding that the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s medical experts provided a basis for a juror to reasonably conclude that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome even though that expert testified that he lacked the expertise necessary to quantify the degree to which the labor and delivery process aggravated the injury. On cross appeal, the supreme court reversed the circuit court’s reduction of the jury’s $2,538,322 award for non-economic damages, holding that this action filed in December 2002 was governed by Mississippi’s wrongful-death statute because the medical-malpractice noneconomic-damages cap was not in place until September 1, 2004.
(Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Coleman and Justice Maxwell. Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

NOTE: This was a big win for the plaintiff and it is a must-read case on medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. I have not read the record, but my understanding from the majority opinion and the dissent is that no expert specifically testified that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome. Instead, the supreme court allowed the jury to “connect the dots” (the “dots” being other pieces of expert testimony) in determining that the plaintiff satisfied that causation standard even though the plaintiff’s obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine expert testified he was not qualified to connect these dots and give an opinion as to the percentage aggravation would be.

Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Powell, 2020-IA-00432-SCT (Civil – Insurance/Coverage)
On interlocutory appeal, affirming the circuit court’s denial of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage, no duty to defend/indemnify, and no duty to pay medpay benefits, holding that a fall from scaffolding that was erected on a trailer that was hitched to an insured pickup was an auto accident arising out of the use and ownership of the covered vehicles.
(Justice Maxwell concurred in result only, joined by Justice Chamberlain and Justice Griffis, and joined by Justice Coleman in part.)

St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital v. Newton, 2020-IA-00494-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the Mississippi law does not impose a duty on a hospital to require peer review of a treatment plan before allowing a doctor and patient to use its facilities.
(Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King.)

PRACTICE POINT: This is less-than-ideal feedback to receive from the supreme court…

Other Orders

Howell v. State, 2020-CA-00868-SCT (directing the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following issue: Whether the Court should overrule Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010), and any other case in which, and to the extent that, we have held the fundamental rights exception to the procedural bars may be applied to the three-year statute of limitations codified by the Legislature in the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act)

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (granting cert)

Newell v. State, 2020-CT-01137-SCT (denying cert)

Thornhill v. Walker-Hill Environmental, 2020-CT-01181-SCT (granting cert)

The Mississippi Bar v. Malone, 2021-BD-00467-SCT (suspending attorney Robert W. Malone for two years)

Hand Down List