Category: Uncategorized

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 10, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List

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 June 7, 2022

A deposition took me out of blogging service for most of the afternoon, so a little later than usual I give you summaries of the nine opinions handed down by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. These opinions cover the statute of frauds, trusts, appellate jurisdiction, youth court, authentication of text messages, equitable division and alimony in a divorce case, workers’ comp, PCR, and more.

SEL Business Services, LLC v. Lord, 2021-CA-00368-COA (Civil – Real Property/Statute of Frauds)
Affirming the chancery court’s dismissal of a suit to reclaim property or alternatively for unjust enrichment, holding that a “handshake deal” for the purchase of a building that was sold before that deal came to fruition was subject to the statute of frauds, that the statute of frauds was not satisfied, and that the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment was therefore unavailable.
(All judges concurred.)

Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates/Appellate Procedure/Appellate Jurisdiction)
Granting a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a case of first impression, holding that the 30-day time period for perfecting an appeal began to run upon the entry of an order adjudicating a claim for attorney’s fees against a trust–not the final judgment terminating the trust.
(All judges concurred.)

Smith v. Adams County Youth Court, 2021-CP-00196-COA (Civil – Juvenile Justice)
Dismissing an appeal of the denial of a minor’s post-disposition motion for modification arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed because the youth court had not been given an opportunity to consider these arguments and any supporting evidence.
(Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Warner v. Warner, 2020-CA-01098-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Valuation/Equitable Division/Alimony/Contempt)
Reversing the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor erred in valuation and equitable division of marital assets, in the award of alimony, and in finding the ex-husband in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees as a result.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (Civil – Felony/Authentication)
Affirming convictions of two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon, holding that there was no plain error with regard to the authentication of text messages and that there was no merit to the claim of ineffective assistance for not objecting to the properly-authenticated text messages.
(Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Carson v. State, 2021-KA-00436-COA (Criminal – Felony/Weight and Sufficiency)
Affirming conviction of possession of cocaine, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying a motion for new trial challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and finding no merit to the defendant’s pro se arguments that his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause were violated, that the State’s case hinged on “racial profiling,” that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the circuit judge failed to comply with Sharplin.
(All judges concurred.)

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and that the plaintiff failed to raise any claims resulting in the deprivation of his fundamental constitutional rights that would defeat the time bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Reardon v. State, 2020-CP-01259-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, deprivation of fundamental rights, and failure to recuse were without merit.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion. Judge Greenlee and Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Duren v. Effex Management Solutions, LLC, 2021-WC-00337-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the Commission’s ruling, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a permanent disability and the decision to award TTD through the date of MMI, but denying post-MMI medical treatment, prescription, and mileage reimbursements.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

DEEPER DIVE: This case had an interesting post-MMI fact pattern where the claimant was released to return to work without restrictions, was offered to return to work for the Employer at his pre-injury wages, and returned to work there, but then quit working for the Employer due to complaints of pain. Under these facts, the Court of Appeals noted that there was a presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and held that the claimant did not overcome it:

Other Orders

Hammer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (denying rehearing)
Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CA-00847-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List