Attorney Discipline – Mississippi Appeals Blog

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 14, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions yesterday. I can report that the “minutes rule” is alive and well and is not to be trifled with.

But before we jump into summaries, I should acknowledge that the biggest appellate news in Mississippi this week is the appointments of Justice Maxwell and Justice Chamberlin to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. If they are confirmed, that will create two vacancies in the Supreme Court District 3. That district is comprised of Alcorn, Attala, Benton, Calhoun, Carroll, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Coahoma, Desoto, Grenada, Itawamba, Lafayette, Lee, Leflore, Lowndes, Marshall, Monroe, Montgomery, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pontotoc, Prentiss, Quitman, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tippah, Tishomingo, Tunica, Union, Webster, Winston, and Yalobusha Counties.

Since two new justices (Branning and Sullivan) joined the Mississippi Supreme Court this year, we could have four justices joining the nine-justice court within a year. This has court-reshaping potential and will be an interesting process to watch.

K.S. v. M.D., 2023-CA-01118-SCT, consolidated with No. 2024-CA-00707-SCT (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision terminating parental rights and denying a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside adoption, holding that the chancellor had jurisdiction to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in terminating parental rights, and that as a result the adoption did not have to be vacated for lack of jurisdiction.
(9-0: Ishee for the Court)

The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Yilport Holding A.S., 2024-IA-00140-SCT, consolidated with No. 2024-IA-00149-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s rulings in a case following failed negotiations after a letter of intent was signed concerning a port expansion, holding that the trial court did not err in applying the “minutes rule” and finding that the LOI was not properly spread upon the minutes of the board and was therefore unenforceable, that estoppel did not apply, that the circuit court did err in allowing the unjust enrichment claim to go forward, and that the trial court did not err in denying summary judgment on the misappropriation-of-trade-secrets claim under the MTCA.
(9-0: King for the Court)

Sardin v. State, 2024-KA-00319-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of trafficking a controlled substance, holding that there were no arguable issues after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record.
(9-0: Randolph for the Court)

Other Orders

In Re: the Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT (granting motion to amend M.R.C.P. 3)
In Re: Commission on Continuing Legal Education, 89-R-99011-SCT (appointing Helen Morris, Amanda B. Seymour, and Katherine K. Farese to three-year terms as members of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education)
Frazier v. State, 2016-M-01363 (denying motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to recuse)
Armistad v. State, 2023-CT-00799-SCT (denying cert)
Young v. Martin, 2023-CT-00980-SCT (denying cert)
Doby v. South Park Village Apartments, 2023-CA-01095-SCT (denying rehearing)
Phillips v. State, 2023-KA-01218-SCT (denying cert)
Tucker v. State, 2024-KA-00255-SCT (dismissing appeal as moot)
Mississippi Methodist Hospital & Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Health, 2925-SA-01113-SCT (denying motion to award costs and attorneys’ fees)
Rogers v. The Mississippi Bar, 2025-BD-00833-SCT (accepting irrevocable resignation as a member of the Mississippi Bar, tendered under Rule 11(a) of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 5, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today, but do not be deceived by that stat. One of the opinions is a 100+ page decision in a death-penalty PCR case. The other is an appeal of denial a motion to compel arbitration. There is also a linked attorney-discipline case.

Galloway v. State, 2013-DR-01796-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Denying motion for leave to proceed in the trial court with PCR petition, holding that (1) the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption that what trial counsel did and did not present as mitigating evidence such as the petitioner’s “true-life story” and mental health issues during the penalty phase might be considered sound trial strategy instead of ineffective assistance; (2) there was no merit to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance during jury selection where counsel used no Batson challenges and an all-white jury was seated or that counsel was otherwise ineffective in voir dire; (3) there was no merit to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance during guilt-innocence phase for not investigating or challenging lack of investigating/challenging the medical examiner’s testimony, in limiting the review of Defense expert’s forensic expert or failing to consult with/prepare him, in failing to assert a Miss. R. Evid. 702 pretrial challenge to the medical examiner’s testimony, or failing to object to the medical examiner’s testimony as outside the scope of the disclosed testimony; (4) there was no merit to the claim that the State corrupted the truth-seeking function of the trial by suppressing material impeachment evidence or presenting false and misleading evidence; (5) the death verdict was not unconstitutionally coerced from a holdout juror; (6) a juror’s exposure to medical coverage showing the victim violated constitutional rights; (7) a juror’s false statement during voir dire that he had not previously served on a criminal jury did not give rise to an inference of prejudice; (8) the petitioner did not show that he was prejudiced when he was placed the defendant in an electronic restraint; (9) death by lethal injection would not violate the petitioner’s rights under the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment; and (10) there was no aggregation of errors mandating a reversal.
(9-0)

PriorityOne Bank v. Folkes, 2022-CA-00429-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding that the bank waived the right to arbitration by substantially participating in the litigation and did not file a motion to compel arbitration until after an amended complaint was filed.
(7-2: Griffis dissented, joined by Beam)

PRACTICE POINT – The Supreme Court’s decision appears to hinge on the fact that the amended complained did not add a new cause of action (which was in dispute). This was enough to affirm the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, but the Supreme Court made it clear the plaintiff was bound by her representation that no new claim was asserted:

Other Orders

Jarvis v. State, 2021-M-01196 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the filing frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)

The Mississippi Bar v. Hessler, 2023-BD-00057-SCT (suspending an attorney from the practice of law for one year and one day, with the suspension deferred retroactively to June 22, 2022)

Wakefield v. State, 2021-CT-00187-SCT (denying cert)

Buchanan v. Hope Federal Credit Union, 2021-CT-00218-SCT (denying cert)

In Re: Resignation of Emily Bonds Davey f/k/a Emily Sides Bonds From The Practice of Law in Mississippi, 2023-BD-00963 (granting leave under Rule 11(b) of the Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi State Bar to resign in good standing from the practice of law in Mississippi)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of March 30, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion today in a criminal case along with one disbarment.

Willard v. State, 2022-KA-00339-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth and sentencing as a habitual offender, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by striking two members of the venire for cause and that any error committed by sustaining the State’s objection to continuing a line of questioning on the contents of a hearsay report not prepared by the witness was harmless.
(9-0)

NOTE – The two potential jurors were struck for cause as a result of saying they were unwilling to convict on the testimony of a law enforcement officer alone.

Other Orders

Mississippi Bar v. Patrick, 2022-BD-01093-SCT (disbarring attorney in lieu of requested indefinite suspension)

Howell v. State, 2020-CA-00868-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List