Tag: Civil Procedure

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

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of April 20, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is one med mal case that is a civil procedure/amendment case. There is a decision addressing the application of the “malicious conduct” exception to the peer review and quality assurance privileges. There is also a direct criminal appeal and a foreclosure case. There were also two interesting cert grants.

Franklin County Memorial Hospital v. Fairman, 2021-IA-01283-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming denial of a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, holding that Rule 21 does not require a court order when an amended complaint could otherwise be filed as a matter of course and the amendment merely corrects the misidentification of a defendant and that such an amendment relates back to the date of initial filing.
(9-0)

Rush v. Rush Health Systems, Inc., 2020-IA-01116-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Dismissing and remanding after receiving the trial court’s discovery order entered in response to a prior remand, addressing only a question of law and adopting a standard to determine when a physician is entitled to production of information protected by Sections 41-63-9, -23, and -45 under the malicious conduct exception.
(9-0)

NOTE – Here is the standard in all its glory:

Eaton v. State, 2021-KA-01334-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and aggravated assault, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting a glass pipe into evidence and that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the overwhelming weight of it.
(9-0)

WBL SPO I, LLC v. West Town Bank & Trust, 2021-CA-00792-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that a junior creditor had no legal remedy entitling it to “equitable credit” in the form of money damages from the foreclosing creditor in the amount of the difference in the foreclosing creditor’s purchase price and the alleged market value of the property and the dismissal of the foreclosing creditor’s counterclaim for tortious interference with business relations.
(5-4-0: Kitchens concurred in result only, joined by Randolph, King, and Chamberlin)

PRACTICE POINT – You can’t appeal without a ruling, and it’s your job to secure a ruling:

Other Orders

In Re: Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, 89-R-99038-SCT (denying motion to amend Miss. R. Crim. P. 5 and 8 but amending the Miss. R. Crim. P. on the Court’s own motion)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2023-AD-00001-SCT (order directing the disbursement of $189,074.60 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Center for Legal Services, MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, and North MS Rural Legal Services)

Rush v. Rush Health Systems, Inc., 2020-IA-01116-SCT (denying motion to supplement the record and motion to file exhibits under seal)

Howard Industries, Inc. v. Hayes, 2021-CT-00694-SCT (granting cert)
NOTE – Here is my summary of the 5-4 COA opinion (Wilson wrote the partial dissent).

Loblolly Properties LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CT-00767-SCT (granting cert)
NOTE – This is a case I had put on “cert watch” when a fractured COA (3-3-4) affirmed the lower court and a Wilson-penned dissent raised some big issues. Here is my summary of the COA opinion.

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 21, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on Tuesday. It was an eclectic mix, including a workers’ comp case, a dysfunctional two-member LLC , a wrongful death case against a sheriff’s deputy, and an inmate’s request for removal of a rule violation report.

Holloway v. King, 2021-CP-01351-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the denial of an inmate’s request for the removal of a rule violation report, holding that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction because the petitioner did not comply with the notice requirements of UCRCCC 5.04.
(6-4: McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks, McDonald, and Lawrence.)

Myrick v. UMMC, 2021-WC-01401-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming MWCC order, holding that there was substantial, credible evidence to support the Commission’s finding that the Employer/Carrier overcame the presumption of permanent total disability and that the claimant’s post-injury back surgery was not related to her compensable back injury.
(7-3-0: Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Colson v. Warren, 2021-CA-01408-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming on direct and cross appeal the chancery court’s decisions denying a claim to dissolve a two-member LLC, holding that the two members should cooperate in drafting and implementing an operating agreement and opening a bank account to deposit rental revenue checks payable to the LLC that had been piling up.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Renfroe v. Parker, 2021-CA-01048-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the law-enforcement defendants in a wrongful death suit after a suspect was killed by a deputy, holding:
1. Res judicata did not bar the plaintiff’s state law tort claims after the federal district court dismissed her 1983 claims with prejudice and her state law claims without prejudice.
2. The deputy and the sheriff were entitled to immunity on the official-capacity claims
3. Collateral estoppel barred the claims for IIED, assault, and battery because the federal district court found that the deputy’s use of force was “objectively reasonable.”
4. Even if collateral did not bar the IIED, assault, and battery claims, the plaintiff did not come forward with evidence to defeat summary judgment.
(7-2: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – According to testimony, the deputy shot the suspect after the suspect charged at the deputy, withstood a taser (pulling the electrodes out of his chest), had a physical altercation with the deputy, and then charged at the deputy a second time. The fact that the suspect did this while wearing pajama pants did not sway the courts at any level.

Other Orders

Green v. State, 2021-KA-01019-COA (rehearing denied)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 2, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a consolidated appeal resolving a “circuit split” where two state circuit courts reached opposite conclusions on the same legal issue involving UM coverage for accidents caused by MTCA-immune tortfeasors. (Come for the holding, stay for the strong words about the Fifth Circuit’s earlier Erie-guess on this issue.) The other opinion involves the rights of a successor in title to a reciprocal easement.

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2021-CA-00882-SCT consolidated with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cooper, 2021-IA-01006-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Resolving a “circuit split” by holding that under the UM statutes (as amended in 2009) the UM carrier was required to provide UM coverage to plaintiffs for damages sustained in collisions with entities afforded immunity under MTCA, reversing summary judgment in one case and affirming the denial of summary judgment in the other case.
(7-0: Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam did not participate.)

Practice Point – The Supreme Court specifically addressed the limited precedential value of this decisions:

Note – The Supreme Court would like us to remember that the Fifth Circuit’s Erie-guesses are not binding precedent in Mississippi. McGlothin is a Fifth Circuit opinion from 2019 that the Mississippi Supreme Court did not exactly agree with:

So what does the Mississippi Supreme Court do?

You can read that approach (that involves the doctrine of in pari materia) in the opinion.

TransMontaigne Operating Company, L.P. v. Loresco I, LLC, 2021-CA-00980-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that the express language of a reciprocal easement was specific and clear and allowed the successor in title to the easement to full use of the easement per its terms and did not limit the successor to the scope of actual use by the predecessor in title.
(7-2: Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice King.)

Other Orders

In Re: The Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT (granting motion to amend Miss. R. Civ. P. 45 – *An order amending Rule 45 was also on the hand down list last week. The link to the order on the hand down page last week is no longer active, but you can see a copy of the PDF that was handed down last week on my post from last week. I quickly compared the two and didn’t immediately see any differences except the date that the amendment will go into effect based on the date the orders were entered.)

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (appointing County Judge Carol Jones Russell of Forrest Countyas a member of the Supreme Court of Mississippi Advisory Committee on Rules on the nomination by the Mississippi Conference of County Court Judges)

Fannings v. State, 2015-M-01061 (denying petition for application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the petition frivolous, and warning against further frivolous filings)

Cook v. State, 2017-M-00455 (denying motion for PCR, finding the filing frivolous, and restricting the plaintiff from further filings in forma pauperis)

Moffett v. State, 2021-CT-00622-SCT (denying cert)

Billie v. State, 2022-M-00416 (denying petition for application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the petition frivolous, and warning against further frivolous filings)

Hand Down List