Tag: Civil Procedure

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of May 29, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One handles four consolidated cases on interlocutory appeal where the defendants contested consolidation and denial of severance. The other case is a direct appeal of murder convictions.

Freese v. Estate of Alford, 2023-IA-00332-SCT consolidated with 2023-IA-00333-SCT, 2023-IA-00335-SCT, 2023-IA-00336-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision adopting the special master’s recommendation granting the plaintiffs’ motions to consolidate claims related to the defendants’ handing and distribution of settlement funds from mass-tort actions and denying the defendants’ motions to sever and re-open discovery, holding that there was no error in consolidating the cases under Rule 20(a), there was no error consolidating under Rule 42(a) and denying severance under Rule 42(b), and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the defendants’ motions to re-open discovery.
(9-0)

Coleman v. State, 2023-KA-01103-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Eason v. South Central Regional Medical Center, 2023-CT-00261-SCT (denying cert)
  • Williams v. State, 2023-CT-00346-SCT (denying cert)
  • In the Interest of A.R.H., a Minor: Malone v. Jackson County Department of Child Protection Services, 2023-CT-00420-SCT (granting cert)
  • Simmons v. State, 2023-CT-00518-SCT (denying cert)
  • Hawkins v. State, 2023-KA-00978-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of April 3, 10, 17, and 24, 2025

Here is Part 2 of my April catch-up posting. The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down nine opinions over the past four weeks. On April 3, appellants went 2-1 with a wills and estates undue-influence case, a divorce case, and an MTCA case with a seven-justice special concurrence addressing confusion in the post-Brantley era. Over the following three weeks there was a case addressing a name-change petition on behalf of a minor undergoing gender transition. There is also a case where a majority of the supreme court justices were unhappy with–but affirmed–the application of one of the Court’s rules requiring a defense attorney had to pay jury costs as part of his client’s plea bargain.

April 3, 2025

In Re Estate of Autry: Autry v. Autry, 2023-CA-01300-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s order invalidating warranty deeds and a last will and testament, holding that the will was invalid because it was not duly authenticated and that the warranty deeds were the product of undue influence.
(9-0)

Sistrunk v. Sistrunk, 2023-CA-01130-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the court erred by not making specific findings of fact supported by evidence for each of the Ferguson factors and that as a result the court also erred in its rulings on alimony, child support, use of the martial home, determination of marital assets, and attorney’s fees.
(9-0)

J.S. by and through Segroves v. Ocean Springs School District, 2023-CA-01009-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in an MTCA case, holding (1) that discretionary-function immunity protected the defendant from claims that it failed to adopt sufficient policies and procedure, (2) that the plaintiff’s claims regarding negligent hiring, supervision, and training are claims sound in simple negligence and should not have been dismissed, and (3) that the plaintiff demonstrated a triable issue of fact on foreseeability.
(6-7*-1-0: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by Coleman, Chamberlin, Ishee, Griffis, Sullivan, and Branning; Griffis concurred in part and in the result without writing; Randolph did not participate)

Note – You know what that sound means… Justice Maxwell has written another special concurrence that garnered enough votes to have precedential effect. This concurrence addressed ongoing confusion in MTCA law after Wilcher overruled Brantley:

Other Orders

  • Georgen v. Estate of Brown-Barrett, 2023-CT-00344-SCT (denying cert)
  • Robinson v. State, 2023-KA-00773-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • Miller v. State, 2023-CT-00812-SCT (denying cert)
  • Adams v. State, 2025-M-00014 (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus in the nature of a post-conviction application, and finding that the filing was frivolous

Hand Down Page

April 10, 2025

Hawkins v. State, 2023-KA-00978-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of sexual battery and two counts of fondling, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the second trial did not violate double jeopardy where the first trial ended in mistrial due to juror misconduct.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • LaFleur v. State, 2022-CT-00500-SCT (denying cert)
  • Wilkerson v. Allred, 2023-CT-00393-SCT (denying cert)
  • Fox v. Allen Automotive, Inc., 2023-CT-00441-SCT (denying cert)
  • Phillips v. Forrest County Industrial Park Commission, 2023-CT-01132-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
  • Williams v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 2023-CA-01225-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

April 17, 2025

In the Matter of S.M. v. Mississippi State Board of Health, 2023-CA-01379-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying a minor female’s petition to legally change her name to a more masculine name as part of a gender transition, holding that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in determining that the child needed to mature more before refiling her request and that the chancellor was not required to apply the Albright factors in reaching that decision.
(8-1: King dissented)

Mississippi Apartment Association v. City of Jackson, 2023-CA-01068-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss an action seeking injunctions based on interpretations and enforcement of city ordinances, holding that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction in a previously-filed action challenging the City’s decision to adopt and also hand pendent jurisdiction over the equitable claims in chancery court.
(5-4: Coleman dissented, joined by Branning, Maxwell, and Griffis; Maxwell dissented, joined by Griffis, and joined in part by Coleman, and Branning)

In Re: Jex, 2024-CP-00291-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s order requiring the defendant’s attorney to pay jury costs, holding that the record confirmed that the attorney voluntarily agreed to do so as part of negotiating a plea bargain for his client.
(4-5*-3: Chamberlin specially concurred, joined by Maxwell, Ishee, Griffis, and Branning; Sullivan dissented, joined by King and Coleman)

Note – Chamberlin’s special concurrence has a total of five votes giving it precedential value. Both the special concurrence and the dissent note some difficult facts in this case and the duress, albeit not “legal duress” the State put the defense attorney under.

Final Note – I count eight votes from the rule-making body unhappy with the application of a rule in this case (Rule 3.13 of the Uniform Civil Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice). See Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975).

Other Orders

  • In Re: State Intervention Courts Advisory Committee, 89-R-99039-SCT (approving the designation of Katharine Surkin, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, of Justice Robert P. Chamberlin as Chair of the State Intervention Courts Advisory Committee and the following as members through December 31, 2026: Judge Michael M. Taylor, Judge Winston L. Kidd, Judge Robert Helfrich, Judge Charles E. Webster, Judge Kathy King Jackson, Judge Randi P. Mueller, Judge John White, Nathan Blevins Deputy Commissioner of Community Corrections, MDOC, Representative Kevin Horan, Chairman, House Judiciary B Committee, Andrea Sanders, Commissioner, Miss. Department of Child Protection Services, and Consuelo Walley, Coordinator, Jones County Drug Ct, 18th Judicial Circuit, and further designating the following alternate members who may attend and vote in the absence of an appointed committee member: Judge Mary “Betsy” Cotton, Judge Mike Dickinson, Judge Walt Brown and W. Dewayne Richardson, District Attorney, Fourth Circuit Court District.)
  • Brown v. State, 2023-CT-00648-SCT (denying cert)
  • In the Matter of Estate of Johnson: Manners v. Estate of Johnson, 2023-CT-00823-SCT (granting cert)
  • In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2025-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $149,116.92 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Center for Legal Services, MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, and North MS Rural Legal Services)

Hand Down Page

April 24, 2025

Quinn v. State, 2024-KA-00195-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s proposed jury instruction defining “homicide,” “murder,” and “deliberate design,” and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
(9-0)

United Emergency Services of Mississippi, Inc. v. Miller, 2023-IA-00767-SCT, consolidated with Baptist Memorial Hospital-Golden Triangle, inc. v. Miller, 2023-IA-00772-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in a med mal case, holding that the there were genuine issues of material fact as to all claims except those relying on the theory that one defendant-doctor should have admitted the decedent to the hospital.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Knight v. State, 2022-KA-01138-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • Middleton v. State, 2024-IA-00144-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • McPhail v. McPhail, 2024-TS-00849 (reinstating appeal)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 25, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today. One opinion is an appeal from a hybrid MTCA/common law med mal trial that cites a law journal article I wrote several years ago on an unresolved procedural conundrum. There is also a premises liability summary judgment case, a breach of contract/attorney’s fees case, three direct criminal appeals, and two PCR cases.

Brown v. State, 2023-CA-00921-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR, holding that the trial court did not err in summarily dismissing the PCR petition as time-barred.
(10-0)

Foote v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, 2023-CA-00504-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment in a med mal action against a hospital (a public entity) and a surgeon and the surgeon’s clinic (private entities) after a single, bifurcated bench and jury trial in which the trial court dismissed the claims against the hospital, holding that if the trial court relied on counsel’s closing statements as evidence it was error but harmless because there was sufficient evidence on the point, that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case that the surgeon proximately caused or contributed to the injuries, and that the plaintiff failed to object to the jury’s involvement in the MTCA claim so the trial court did not err in partially bifurcating the trial where the jury decided the claims against the private defendants and gave an advisory verdict as to the public defendant, and that the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to allocate fault to the public defendant and the finding that the allocation was not supported by substantial evidence.
(7-2-1: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing, Lawrence dissented)

NOTE – I was excited to see one of my law review articles cited in this opinion. (If you are so inclined, you can read my article here.) There is no clear guidance from the rules or case law as to how trials should proceed when there a public defendant (entitled to a bench trial under the MTCA) and private defendant (entitled to a jury trial under Mississippi’s constitution, et al). I advocated for a specific procedure in the article that was cited in today’s opinion. In today’s case, the public defendant advocated for the procedure I proposed and the plaintiff argued for a different approach that involved the jury rendering an advisory verdict as to the public defendant. The trial court adopted the plaintiff’s approach. The plaintiff complained about the procedure on appeal, but the Court of Appeals held he could not argue that the trial court erred in following his proposal. Here is the Court of Appeals’ recapitulation of the argument following my proposal:

In 2016, the Rules Committee on Civil Procedure solicited input for a “Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure Revision Project.” I submitted a proposed amendment to Rule 38 along with a copy of my article:

I never did hear anything back.

Blumer v. Majestic Homes, LLC, 2024-CA-00163-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a homeowner against a home builder awarding liquidated damages, attoyne’s fees, and expenses, holding that the trial court did not err entering a corrected order granting relief under Rule 60(b) since there had been no judgment expressly adjudicating the remaining claims and that the trial court did not err in dismissing the claims against the home builder in his individual capacity, but that the trial court did err in reducing the award of attorney’s fees.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Dewberry v. State, 2023-KA-01135-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of sexual battery, one count of fondling, and one count of child exploitation, holding that the trial court did not err in seating jurors after a Batson challenge and that a jury instruction did not constitute a constructive substantive amendment of a count in the indictment under the plain-error doctrine.
(10-0)

Rodriguez v. Diamondhead Country Club, 2024-CA-00238-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a premises liability case, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a one-half-inch height differential between sidewalk slabs was not a dangerous or unreasonably hazardous condition or in finding that there was no evidence to support a negligence per se claim under the ADA where the plaintiff was not disabled.
(10-0)

Thomas v. State, 2023-KA-00512-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting a Facebook post, that the trial court did not err denying a directed verdict under Weathersby, that the conviction was support by sufficient evidence, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress the defendant’s statements to law enforcement, that the trial court did not err in admitting autopsy photos, and that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
(8-2-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Rasberry v. State, 2023-KA-01161-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of failing to register as a sex offender, holding that the lack of specificity in the indictment was at most harmless error, that the trial court did not err by granting an unopposed motion to amend the indictment, and that trial counsel was not ineffective.
(10-0)

Deer v. State, 2024-CP-00019-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court properly dismissed the motion pursuant to the UPCCRA’s three-year statute of limitations.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Other Orders

  • None

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 5, 2024

I’m back. Again. I would like to think I will go back and summarize the last few weeks that I have missed but that is probably water under the bridge at this point. Pressing forward, the Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. These decisions cover custody, felonies, personal injury, unemployment, and zoning. Notably, two criminal convictions were reversed.

Patrick v. Patrick, 2021-CA-00891-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of the mother’s petition for contempt and modification and granting the father’s motion for modification, holding that the issue of custody was clearly before the chancellor who properly determined that there was a material change in circumstances that adversely affected the children, conducted a proper Albright analysis, and was within his discretion to order a change in legal and physical custody.
(8-1-1: McCarty concurred in part and in the result and McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part. Neither wrote.)

Allen v. State, 2022-KA-00419-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing convictions six counts of statutory rape, holding that the jury was not properly instructed as to the State’s burden of proof and remanding for a new trial.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without writing.)

Practice Point: The erroneous instruction was submitted by the defense, but the Court noted that the “invited-error doctrine” did not apply where the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of the crime. Here is the Court’s summary of the issues with the jury instructions:

Fletcher v. State, 2022-KA-00868-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence as habitual offender, holding that the trial court did not err when it failed to suppress the defendant’s statement to law enforcement officials.
(10-0)

The Avion Group, Inc. v. The City of Oxford, 2023-CA-00169-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision denying an ordinance variance to repair a wall/fence that enclosed the petitioner’s property, holding that the petitioner did not waive its challenge to the city’s code interpretation but that the circuit court’s interpretation of the code provisions at issue were not erroneous.
(10-0)

Carter v. C&S Canopy, Inc., 2022-CA-00730-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a driver and his employer in an auto-negligence case, holding that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that the driver negligently continued to drive a “sluggish” truck on the interstate, that the defendants were negligent in their efforts to get the truck towed, that the location of reflective triangles was the proximate cause of the crash, that the defendant could have safely moved the disabled truck anywhere other than where he did, that the driver should have registered as a for-hire carrier, or that the employer negligently failed to train the driver.

Appellate Math Warning: None of us signed up for this.

Marshall v. State, 2022-KA-00541-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the defense’s peremptory strikes of three jurors, holding that the defense provided valid, race-neutral reasons for the strikes.
(10-0)

Cain v. M.D.E.S., 2023-CC-00188-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming denial of claim for unemployment benefits, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the claimant’s appeal of denial as untimely.
(10-0)

Other Orders

Walker v. State, 2022-KA-00482-COA (denying rehearing)

Gregory Meridian Acquisition, LLC v. McFarland, 2022-CA-00580-COA (denying rehearing)

Fox v. Fox, 2022-CA-00918-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 23, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions on Tuesday. There is a workers’ comp case, a homeowner v. HOA dispute with a robust discussion of Robert’s Rules of Order, a personal injury appeal after an underwhelming verdict for the plaintiff with some significant discovery/evidentiary rulings, a tortious interference case stemming from a grocery wholesaler’s default on financial obligations, three direct criminal appeals, and a couple of PCR cases.

Kirby v. State, 2022-KA-00320-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and two counts of possession of a weapon by a felon, holding that the defendant failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective, that the court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a rebuttal witness for the State, and that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
(10-0)

Harris v. State, 2022-KA-00647-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of touching a child for lustful purposes as an authority figure, holding that the circuit court did not commit reversible error by admitting a video recording of the defendant’s police interview after the detective had already testified about the interview, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and declining to address the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal.
(10-0)

Buena Vista Lakes Maintenance Ass’n, Inc. v. Jones, 2022-CA-01153-COA (Civil – HOA)
Reversing the chancery court’s decision in a homeowner v. HOA dispute over the interpretation of bylaws, holding that the bylaws were not ambiguous and that a two-thirds majority of eligible votes cast at the meeting was required as opposed to two-third majority of those eligible to vote and holding that the chancellor erred in finding that the HOA’s bad on rental properties was against public policy.
(10-0)

NOTE – Robert’s Rules of Order had a moment here.

Divinity v. Hinds Cty Sch. Dist., 2022-WC-01282-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision after a hearing on the merits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the claimant’s upper extremity complaints were not among the injuries she sustained in her work-related accident and that the Employer/Carrier was not required to pay for a spinal cord stimulator and certain prescriptions.
(9-0: Carlton did not participate)

NOTE – This was a pro se appeal and the procedural history was convoluted.

Boyett v. State, 2022-CP-01239-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a motion for PCR, holding that the motion was time-barred.
(10-0)

Duncan v. State, 2023-CP-00406-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of motion for PCR, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding the PCR motion moot because the petitioner had been released on parole.
(10-0)

Harris v. Ratcliff, 2022-CA-00596-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for new trial or additur after the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in an amount significantly less than the plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant’s additional time to designate experts, in striking one of the plaintiff’s experts at trial after the expert began testifying based on notes that had not been disclosed (to the surprise of both sides), in denying the plaintiff’s request to substitute an expert for another expert who was in a coma where the plaintiff was prepared to use the expert’s video testimony at trial, or in excluding a DTI brain scan.
(7-2: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; McCarty did not participate)

Edwards v. State, 2022-KA-00719-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted capital murder of a chancery court judge, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing testimony from two law enforcement officers regarding information they received during their investigation because it was offered for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(9-1-0: Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Silver Dollar Sales, Inc. v. Battah, 2022-CA-00476-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of one defendant in a case stemming from a grocery wholesaler’s default on its debts to a financing company, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that one defendant (another grocery wholesaler) committed tortious interference with business relations or that anything that defendant did proximately caused actual damages to the plaintiff.
(8-2: McDonald dissented, joined by Westbrooks)

Other Orders

In the Matter of the Guardianship of B.P.: Michael P. v. Patrick Thomas and Jennifer Thomas, 2021-CA-01288-COA (denying rehearing)

Tubwell v. FV-1, Inc., 2021-CP-01345-COA (denying rehearing)

Washington v. State, 2021-KA-01384-COA (denying rehearing)

Ramsey v. State, 2022-CP-00103-COA (denying rehearing)

Prophet v. State, 2022-CA-00933-COA (denying rehearing)

Hall v. State, 2022-CP-01097-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 21, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions on Tuesday. There are some interesting opinions in there including three opinions with civil procedure issues that civil litigators should take a look at. One deals with the discovery rule and the savings statute after a voluntary dismissal, another deals with a Rule 41 dismissal for want of prosecution, and the other deals with a Rule 56(f) motion in a med mal case.

The Supreme Court will not hand down decisions this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Burns v. BancorpSouth Bank, 2022-CA-00404-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming dismissal of breach of contract and negligence claims that two banks were liable for not preventing an elderly lady’s caregiver from stealing money from bank accounts, holding that the claims against the banks were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee did not participate)

Harper v. State, 2022-KA-00659-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted statutory rape and fondling, holding that the trial court did not err by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements without determining whether the tender-years exception applied because the victim’s teacher’s testimony about what the victim said was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that the forensic interviewing expert’s testimony did not constitute hearsay, and dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claims without prejudice.
(8-2-0: Enfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing and McDonald concurred in the result only without writing)

Agee v. State, 2022-KA-00994-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the Court did not err by imposing restitution and that the defendant waived that issue by not objecting during sentencing.
(9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in the result only without writing)

Clearman v. Pipestone Property Services, LLC, 2022-CA-00651-COA (Civil – Personal injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of slip-and-fall claims against a contractor and subcontractor who provided snow and ice removal services for a grocery store on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the “discovery rule” did not apply, the voluntary dismissal of a timely federal court lawsuit against the grocery store did not bring the claims against the contractor and subcontractor within the ambit of the “savings statute,” and the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply.
(10-0)

Galvan v. State, 2022-KA-00655-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of statutory rape, sexual battery, gratification of lust, and incest, holding that the trial court did not err by not appointing an interpreter or by admitting the defendant’s statements to law enforcement, that the defendant waived objections based on the Confrontation Clause, that there was sufficient evidence to support the incest conviction, and that the defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.
(9-1-0: Carlton concurred in result only without writing)

Rawlings v. Rawlings, 2022-CA-00919-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the ex-wife’s request for attorney’s fees after denying the ex-husband’s request for alimony modification, holding that she was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the marital dissolution agreement providing that the prevailing party in an enforcement action was entitled to attorney’s fees because this was an action to “modify” the agreement not “enforce” it.
(10-0)

Scott v. UnitedHealthcare of Mississippi, Inc., 2022-CA-00963-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming dismissal for want of prosecution where an 18-month period of inactivity followed the filing of the compliant, interrupted only by some activity prompted by the circuit clerk’s notice of intent to dismiss under Rule 41, that then followed by another 18-month period of inactivity and a second Rule 41 notice, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case even though the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Leave Case on the Docket” after the second Rule 41 notice and that the Court otherwise had inherent power to dismiss for want of prosecution.
(8-2-0: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

NOTE – The Court was not persuaded by the plaintiff’s efforts to assign blame to the COVID pandemic. The plaintiff argued:

The Court addressed this argument later in the opinion:

Hogan v. Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A., 2022-CA-00650-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ 56(f) motion filed the day before the motion for summary judgment hearing, holding that the plaintiffs’ 56(f) motion did not mention the need to obtain additional expert medical opinions and the plaintiffs had not otherwise shown that additional expert opinion could establish proximate cause.
(8-1-0: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Carlton did not participate.)

Other Orders

Love v. State, 2021-CP-01101-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 7, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a panic-inducing civil procedure case and the other is a direct criminal appeal.

Thomas v. Bolivar County, Mississippi, 2022-CA-00445-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in an MTCA case where the complaint was delivered to the circuit clerk on the last day of the limitations period but it was not entered into MEC until the following day (after the deadline), holding (1) when the MTCA statute of limitations falls on a Sunday, Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-67 authorizes an extension to the following Monday; (2) delivery of the complaint, civil cover sheet, and filing fee constituted “filing” the complaint; and (3) the delay in having a summons issued did not delay the commencement date of the action.
(9-0)

PRACTICE POINT – The underlying facts of this case are nightmare fuel for civil litigators. As if the background facts weren’t enough, this part the opinion also caught my attention:

McCollum v. State, 2021-KA-01276-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of grand larceny, holding that the investigator had presented sufficient probable cause to the magistrate to justify a search warrant, that there was no hearsay admitted that would warrant reversal, and there was no error in denying a mistrial based on the presence of witness during the testimony of a State’s witness because the trial court excused the witness who violated the sequestration rule.
(7-2: King dissented, joined by Kitchens)

Other Orders

Crump v. State, 2018-M-00410 (denying application to proceed in the trial court and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications for PCR in forma pauperis)

Garcia v. State, 2021-CA-01214-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 1, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. We have a couple of state boards and agencies decisions, one dealing with recall of a police officer’s certification and the other with a termination of a teacher and suspension of license. There is a real property case involving a church and the invocation of the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine,” a direct criminal appeal, and two PCR cases.

As a housekeeping note, I have started writing “sub silentio” instead of “without separate written opinion” to indicate concurrences and dissents without separate written opinions. I am not aware of that phrase being used in that specific manner, but I think it gets the point across. This may not seem like a big deal, and it really isn’t, but the frequency with which I have been typing “without separate written opinion” has become a thief of joy for this humble blogger of case summaries.

Walters v. Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training, 2022-SA-00378-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision affirming Board’s decision to recall a police officer’s processional certification, holding that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious, did not violate the former officer’s constitutional rights, and were supported by substantial evidence including evidence of unnecessary force, violations of department policies, and racist text messages.
(10-0)

NOTE– The Court also granted in part a motion from the Board to unseal the case file.

Pickle v. State, 2022-CP-00929-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision denying a motion to vacate a sentence for capital murder while committing criminal rape from 1978, holding that the petitioner was not illegally sentenced and that he was not entitled to a Miller resentencing hearing.
(8-2-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result sub silentio; Lawrence concurred in the result only sub silentio.)

Greater New Hamilton Grove Baptist Church v. Hamilton Grove Missionary Baptist Church, 2022-CA-00518-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s ruling that a deed purporting to convey real property owned by a church was invalid because it was not authorized by a resolution under section 79-11-31(1), holding that the chancellor was not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction under the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine,” that the “minutes rule” was not applicable because a church is not a public board, and the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
(10-0)

NOTE – I thought the Court’s summary of its decision on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was interesting:

Badger v. State, 2022-CP-00831-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the petitioner’s third motion for PCR twelve years after pleading guilty, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the motion was time-barred and did not meet any statutory exception under the UPCCRA or any fundamental rights exception that was in effect at that time.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only sub silentio.)

Langley v. Miss. State Board of Education, 2022-SA-01024-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies)
Affirming the BOE’s decision upholding a teacher’s termination for violations of the BOE’s standards of conduct, suspending her license for five years, and placing conditions on reinstatement, holding that the Commission’s decision as upheld by the Board and the chancery court was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious, the Commission was authorized to suspect her license, and she was afforded due process at her hearing.
(10-0)

West v. State, 2022-KA-00432-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and gratification of lust, both while in position of trust and authority, holding that the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence argument was procedurally barred because it was not raised before the circuit court and that the circuit court did not commit plain error in not sua sponte declaring a mistrial.
(5-3-2: Barnes, McDonald, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result sub silentio; Greenlee concurred in part and dissented in part sub silentio; Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald and Greenlee in part)

Other Orders

Wakefield v. State, 2021-KA-00187-COA (denying rehearing)

Estate of Bell v. Estate of Bell, 2021-CA-00789-COA (denying rehearing)

Anderson v. State, 2021-KA-01340-COA (denying rehearing)

McDowell v. State, 2021-CA-01381-COA (denying rehearing)

Everett v. State, 2021-CP-01415-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 9, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine ten opinions today. There are two direct criminal appeals, a divorce case, a bad faith insurance case, an appeal of the suspension of police officers, a construction bid appeal, and two PCR cases.

Durr v. State, 2021-KA-01109-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, capital murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, holding that ineffective assistance claim based on Defendant’s representation by the same public defender’s office that represented codefendents who testified against Defendant should be dismissed without prejudice and that if there was error in admitting a codefendant’s affidavit as substantive it was harmless.
(8-2: Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald; McDonald also dissented without separate written opinion.)

Hughes v. State, 2021-CP-01241-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion to vacate PRS revocation and imposition of suspended sentence, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling based on absconscion.
(10-0)

Sanders v. State, 2022-KA-00351-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of failing to update sex offender registration, holding based upon review of a Lindsey Brief, review of a pro se brief, and the record that there were no arguable issues that would warrant reversal.
(10-0)

Adams v. City of Jackson, 2021-CC-00454-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the suspension of two officers for engaging in a pursuit while Jackson had a no-pursuit policy, holding that the clear and substantial evidence showed that there was no “pursuit” where an officer initiated a traffic stop and followed the suspect for just over a mile at between 10-20mph.
(8-1: McDonald dissented without separate written opinion; Westbrooks did not participate.)

Davis v. Davis, 2021-CA-01246-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s judgment of divorce, holding there was no error in granting divorce on the grounds of adultery but holding that the chancellor did not properly classify and value certain assets and debts and remanded for proper classification and valuations.
(8-2-0: Wilson and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

PRACTICE POINT – Make the trial court’s job easy! It is good advocacy and it is the humane thing to do.

Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that all issues were procedurally barred and without merit.
(9-1-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Groves v. State, 2021-KA-00755-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of kidnapping and armed robbery, holding that the circuit court did not err in allowing the use of the word “victim” to describe the victim, that the claim of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments was procedurally barred and without merit, and that the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of it.
(10-0)/

Gregory Construction Services, Inc. v. Miss. Dept. of Finance and Admin., 2021-SA-00765-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming determination that a contractor’s denied construction bid was non-responsive for failing to include a one-page federal form, holding that there were no due process considerations since the plaintiff had no vested property interest in the denied bid and the agencies’ decisions were supported by substantial evidence and reasoning.
(9-0: McCarty did not participate.)

Holloway v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2021-CA-01066-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming summary judgment in a bad faith case alleging that a reservation of rights was in bad faith and caused emotional distress even though the carrier ultimately funded a settlement to secure a release of all claims against the insured, holding that the carrier had a legitimate basis for defending under a reservation of rights.
(9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 2021-CA-00605-COA (denying rehearing)

Moreland v. Spears, 2021-CA-00714-COA (denying rehearing)

Lamy v. Lamy, 2021-CA-00770-COA (denying rehearing)

Colburn v. State, 2021-KA-00865-COA (denying rehearing)

Brooks v. Jeffreys, 2021-CA-01113-COA (denying rehearing)

Nunn v. State, 2021-KA-01371-COA (recalling mandate to allow pro se motion for rehearing to proceed on the merits)

MS Concrete and Benchmark Ins. Co. v. Harris, 2022-WC-01095-COA (denying motion for rehearing of dismissal of appeal)

Hunter v. State, 2022-TS-01269-COA (granting motion for reconsideration and denying motion for appointment of counsel)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 25, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and there is something for just about every practice area. There are two appellate jurisdiction cases, a will contest, a breach of contract case, two direct criminal appeals, a divorce/marital estate division case, a breach of termite contract case, an intra-church lawsuit, and an intentional tort/attorney’s fees case.

Herning v. Lakeview S/C Partners, Ltd., 2021-CA-01427-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the defendant’s appeal from summary judgment for the plaintiff entered by the county court, holding that the defendant failed to pay the cost bond for his appeal within the thirty-day time limit so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
(8-2: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Pearson v. Eubanks, 2022-CA-00011-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancery court’s dismissal of a will contest, holding that the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations when the filed the will contest provided them stating to contest the will on undue influence grounds.
(10-0)

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00472-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first and second degree murder, holding:
1. No error in transferring venue that the defendant requested.
2. No error in denying Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground jury instructions.
3. The doctrine of retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
4. Limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a witness about his pending indictment was harmless error.
5. The objection to the investigator’s testimony about exit wounds was waived.
6. No speedy trial violation (issue raised pro se)
7. No error in denying the motion to quash and dismiss the indictment (issue raised pro se)
8. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct (issue raised pro se)
9. No error in allowing the jury to review transcript of the defendant’s recorded statement (issue raised pro se)
10. Evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of it (issue raised pro se)
(7-3-0: Barnes and Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Smith concurred in part and in the result, joined by Barnes and Lawrence.)

Kloss v. Bay Pest Control, Inc., 2021-CA-01117-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing breach of termite-prevention contract and negligence claim, holding that the presence of termites alone did not support the breach of contract claim or the negligence claim.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Underwood v. State, 2021-CP-01123-COA (Civil – Other)
Dismissing direct appeal of a guilty plea for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.
(10-0)

Christian v. State, 2021-KA-00898-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and the Court’s review of the record, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal.
(10-0)

Lewis v. Lewis, 2022-CA-00016-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s line of demarcation for division of the marital estate and award of alimony, holding that the chancellor was well within her discretion to use a December 2020 temporary order as the line of demarcation rather that the trial date and that the chancellor’s alimony findings were sufficient and her ruling was not ab abuse of discretion.
(10-0)

Miller v. Board of Trustees of Second Baptist Church of Starkville, 2020-CA-01384-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing a monetary judgment following a jury trial, holding that the board of trustees of a church lacked standing to sue the church’s senior pastor and chairman of its deacons for breach of fiduciary duties and other claims, holding that the board lacked authority to file the lawsuit without the church members’ approval and lacked authority to maintain suit after a majority of members voted against it.
(5-2-3: Westbrooks and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee dissented without separate written opinion; Barnes dissented, joined by Greenlee and McDonald)

Herbert v. Herbert, 2021-CA-01291-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds the affirmative defense of release because that defense had been waived but affirming on de novo review of the merits of claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, verbal assault, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, and breach of contract, but reversing the circuit court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.
(6-1-2: McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald; Emfinger did not participate.)

Other Orders

Lofton v. Lofton, 2021-CA-00035-COA (denying rehearing)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (denying rehearing)

Buchanan v. State, 2021-CP-01069-COA (recalling mandate so motion for rehearing can proceed on merits)

Hand Down Page