Tag: 12(b)(6)

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 11, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There are four divorce-related decisions, two direct criminal appeals, a tort case dismissed for failure to state a claim, a negligence case dismissed for want of prosecution, and a PCR case.

Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings in a divorce action, holding that that the chancellor did not err in denying appellant’s Rule 60 motion that was filed after the mandate from the appeal of the case had been entered because the mandate rule barred reconsideration and that the chancellor did not err in finding the appellant in contempt or in incarcerating him for it.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate)

Clark v. State, 2023-KA-00011-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of simple possession of a controlled substance, holding that after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief, appellant’s pro se brief, and the record that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that there were no other issues to warrant reversal.
(10-0)

Scott v. State, 2022-KA-00830-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of touching a child for lustful purposes, nine counts of sexual battery, and one count of exploitation of a child, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for change of venue because the motion to change venue was procedurally defective and lacked merit.
(9-0)

Ware v. Ware, 2023-CA-00605-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce action, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion finding that the martial home was a marital asset, in distributing the marital home equally between the parties, or in not making specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each Ferguson factor.
(10-0)

Hasley v. Hasley, 2023-CA-00914-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s ruling that temporary orders of separate maintenance had been converted to a final order of support, holding that the order being appealed was entered while the case was previously on appeal and that the issue sub judice was encompassed in the Court of Appeals’ prior ruling and remanding for further proceedings.
(8-2-0: Barnes and Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2022-CP-01060-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the pro se plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint after the initial complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, holding that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief.
(10-0)

Pace v. Pace, 2022-CA-01259-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and vacating in part the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce matter related to the sale of a jointly owned commercial building, holding that the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to grant one party’s contempt motion but affirming the chancellor’s decision ordering that party to buy the other party’s interest in the property and denial of the Rule 59 motion.
(10-0)

Jiles v. State, 2023-CP-00383-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the dismissal of several PCR motions, holding that they were time-barred and successive and that and no exceptions applied, and that the remaining arguments were waived because he pleaded or because he did not raise them in the circuit court.
(10-0)

Ware v. Brown, 2023-CA-00663-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of a negligence action for want of prosecution, holding that there was a clear record of delay including two granted motions to compel and a two-year effort to obtain one plaintiff’s relevant medical history, that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice in lieu of lesser sanctions.
(5-1(2?)-3(2?): Wilson and Smith concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; joined by McCarty and Smith; Westbrooks did not participate.)

Other Orders

  • Patrick v. Patrick, 2021-CA-00891-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Okorie v. Nat’l Ass’n Wells Fargo Bank, 2022-CP-00043-COA (denying pro se motion for reconsideration)
  • Marshall v. State, 2022-KA-00541-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (denying motions for reconsideration and for recusal of four judges of the Court of Appeals)
  • Hartzog v. State, 2024-TS-00033-COA (denying pro se “motion to show cause” and dismissing appeal)

Hand Down Page

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 15, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today with a little something for everybody. There are two real-property decisions, two PCR denials, one criminal conviction affirmed, and an MTCA/12(b)(6) decision.

DeSoto County v. Vinson,  2021-CA-00122-COA (Civil – Real Property/Division of Subdivision Lot)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision reversing a DeSoto County Board of Supervisors decision regarding the division of a subdivision lot into two separate residential lots, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the properly owner should resubmit an application to divide property with written approval of “adversely affected” and “directly interested” parties or proceed under section 19-27-31 in chancery court.
(All judges concurred)

Land v. Land, 2021-CA-00402-COA (Civil – Real Property/Partition of Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of complaint for partition, holding that chancellor did not err in ruling that the residential property claimed as homestead property by one party could only be partitioned by written agreement of the parties and could not be involuntarily partitioned by chancery court decree.
(All judges concurred)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the second PCR motion satisfied a statutory exemption to procedural bars and that the evidence did not show good cause for failing to provide additional affidavits.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in result, joined by Judge McDonald and Judge Lawrence, and joined in part by Judge McCarty)

Jackson v. State, 2021-KA-00292-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and filming a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and a sentence to serve consecutive terms of thirty years and forty years, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal based upon a Lindsey brief and the Court’s independent review of the record.
(All judges concurred)

Horton v. State, 2021-CP-00383-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the sentence was not unconstitutional and that his confession was voluntary.
(All judges concurred)

J.D. v. McComb School District, 2020-CA-00022-COA (Civil – Personal injury/Civil Procedure/12(b)(6))
Reversing the circuit court’s ruling granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations that a minor was attacked at school and that the school district had knowledge of similar conduct by the attacker and breached its ministerial duty to use ordinary care and to take reasonable steps to minimize foreseeable risk to the plaintiff.
(Judge Smith dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee and Judge Lawrence and joined in part by Judge Emfinger)

Practice Point: In footnote 6, the majority opinion addressed and rejected the dissent’s argument that the plaintiff should have included additional details regarding the alleged prior conduct of the attacker, summarizing the liberal pleading requirements of Rule 8:

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List Page