Tag: bench trial

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 9, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on Tuesday. Notably, not one of the decisions was a clean affirmance. There is a personal injury/MTCA decision, a riparian property damage case, a divorce decision, and an arbitration decision.

Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services v. Butler, 2022-CA-00176-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal in an MTCA car wreck case, holding that the circuit court did err after holding a bench trial and finding that the defendant-driver was in the course and scope of her employment and her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, but holding that the circuit court erred in not awarding damages for the loss of a cell phone and repair of a wedding band and that the circuit court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for additur on the loss-of-consortium claim.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Hegman v. Adcock, 2022-CA-00501-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment affirming the county court in a riparian rights case, holding that the circuit court did not err in affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and damages and the denial of the defendant’s Rule 52 motion, but reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the court court’s finding the plaintiff liable on a tortious interference with business relations counterclaim and the $95,000 award on that counterclaim.
(8-2-0: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Bolivar v. Bolivar, 2022-CA-00640-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Vacating the chancery court’s judgment on a motion for contempt in “highly contentious divorce proceedings,” holding that the movant was required to have a new Rule 81 summons for her fourth contempt motion “regardless of the status of the litigation.”
(10-0)

Coleman v. Stan King Chevrolet, Inc., 2022-CA-00943-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on the underlying claims, holding that where the defendants initially sought to compel arbitration but later obtained a default judgment on their counterclaim in the circuit court, the defendants’ rejection of the plaintiff’s attempt to proceed with arbitration justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6), holding that the circuit court erred in addressing the statute of limitations issue, and remanded for the matter to be restored to the active docket and stayed pending conclusion of arbitration proceedings.
(5-3-2: Lawrence and Smith concurred in part and in the result without writing; McCarty concurred in result only without writing; Greenlee dissented, joined by Enfinger)

NOTE – The proceedings in the circuit court were convoluted. It necessary to read the opinion to get a handle on what took place and the Court’s ruling.

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2021-CA-01182-COA (denying rehearing)

Carpenter v. State, 2022-KA-00398-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2022-KA-00573-COA (denying rehearing)

Boyington v. State, 2022-KA-00601-COA (denying rehearing)

Pickle v. State, 2022-CP-00929-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 18, 2023

I am declaring an end to the hiatus caused by the tree falling on my house. That war rages on, but these decisions are not going to summarize themselves. I aspire to go back and summarize the decisions handed down while I was down, but I am going to prioritize summarizing new hand downs going forward.

On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals handed down four opinions. One is an appeal of a verdict in a med mal bench trial. The other three are PCR cases, one of which yielded a 5-1-4 split.

Singing River Health System v. Brand, 2022-CA-00090-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming judgment for the plaintiff in a med mal case against a hospital after a bench trial, holding that the hospital’s vicarious liability argument was procedurally barred because it not raised at the trial court level, that the plaintiff’s experts were qualified to testify about a breach of the standard of care and cause of death and provided sufficient evidence under the “lost chance of recovery” theory, and that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in result only; Lawrence did not participate.)

Tate v. State, 2021-CP-01237-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err determining that there was no evidence showing that the plea of guilt was involuntary or that counsel was ineffective.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate.)

Havercome v. State, 2022-CA-00391-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the motion was barred by the UPCCRA.
(10-0)

Love v. State, 2021-CP-01101-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of motion for PCR, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that there was a factual basis for his plea, that the please was voluntary, that the claim to withdraw his plea was time-barred, and that counsel was not ineffective.
(5-1-4: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without written opinion; Emfinger dissented, joined by Wilson, Westbrooks, and McCarty, and joined in part by McDonald.)

Other Orders

Alford v. State, 2022-KA-00025-COA (denying rehearing)

Hopes v. State, 2022-KA-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page