Tag: Civil Procedure

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

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of January 26, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down just one opinion today, but it was a significant decision in the PCR arena. Of great interest to civil practitioners, the Supreme Court also amended Rule 37 and Rule 45 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments to Rule 45 should make life easier, especially for paralegals and the circuit clerks’ offices.

Howell v. State, 2020-CA-00868-SCT (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a motion for PCR, overruling Rowland and holding that the plaintiff could not overcome the statute of limitations bar by asserting a fundamental-rights exception and holding that the petition otherwise lacked merit.
(7-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Ishee)

NOTE – Here is the language overruling Rowland:

ANOTHER NOTE – When both the majority and dissent cite Newell v. State you know its a classic, Mississippi separation of powers throw-down.

In Re: The Rules of Civil Procedure, 89-R-99001-SCT
Amending Rule 37 and Rule 45 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Both amendments will impact civil practice and need to be studied and accounted for once they take effect. The big news from my perspective is that the amended Rule 45 provides a mechanism for attorneys to issue subpoenas in their cases not unlike the federal court rule. See the text of the amended rule and comment below for the details.

Here is the En Banc Order with the amended Rule 37 attached:

700_6149651Download

Here is the same for Rule 45:

700_6151791Download

Other Orders

Butler v. State, 2020-CT-00806-SCT (dismissing cert that had previously been granted)

Nelson v. State, 2020-M-01417 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding it frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further PCR petitions in forma pauperis)

Camphor v. State, 2021-CT-00048-SCT (denying cert)

Fisher v. State, 2021-KA-00828-SCT (denying rehearing)

Anderson v. State, 2022-M-00582 (denying motion for PCR, finding it frivolous, and warning against future frivolous filings)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2023-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $148,438.33 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Center for Legal Services, MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, and North MS Rural Legal Services)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 24, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. Three criminal cases and three PCR cases. I don’t anticipate any of the PCR cases today drawing the sort of attention the Hathorn case drew last week.

Wells v. State, 2021-KA-00747-COA (Civil – Felony)
Affirming conviction for sale of meth, holding that testimony from a confidential informant about the defendant’s past drug selling activity was elicited by defense counsel on cross and not purposeful elicited by the DA and that it was not error to refuse the defendant’s preferred instruction on weighing confidential informant testimony.
(10-0)

Note – Pithy introductory paragraphs like this could put me out of business:

Thomas v. State, 2021-CP-00060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the sentence was not illegal, that there was a sufficient factual basis for the kidnapping plea, that the retroactive competency hearing was adequate and proper, and that there was no error in finding the plaintiff competent.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the judgment without separate written opinion)

Green v. State, 2021-CP-01299-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the three-year statement of limitations, and the motion was an impermissible successive motion.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Bradley v. State, 2022-CP-00173-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the motion was both successive and time-barred.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Melendez v. State, 2021-KA-00775-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and aggravated assault, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, dismissing the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice, and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a flight instruction.
(10-0)

Alford v. State, 2022-KA-00025-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of trafficking meth with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(5-5-0: Judge Wilson, Judge McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result; Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00548-COA (granting appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees) (don’t get excited, they were contractual fees)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (recalling mandate and accepting pro se motion for rehearing as timely)

Hendrix v. State, 2022-TS-01217-COA (dismissing appeal for want of appealable judgment)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 10, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. These decisions cover a wide range of areas including wills, felonies, personal injury, defamation, and adoption. One of the more interesting and potentially useful decisions analyzes the admissibility of images from Google Earth and measurements generated by Google Earth.

Perrigin v. State, 2021-KA-00858-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that the Confrontation Clause was not violated since the victim did testify at trial, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised on a PCR petition.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 2021-CA-01208-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s ruling in a will contest, holding that the word “should” was permissive and that, in any event, even if there was a mandatory requirement that one son have an opportunity to purchase a property there was sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that he did have such a chance.
(10-0)

Bolton v. Lee, 2020-CA-00344-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming a dismissal for failure to state a claim in favor of a banker and a bank and affirming summary judgment in favor of a lawyer and law firm, holding that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from recovering in a civil action on the same facts that formed the basis of their criminal convictions of tax evasion and filing false tax returns.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Pope v. Martin, 2021-CA-00367-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant in a defamation and wiretapping suit, holding that there was no error in granting summary judgment without a hearing or without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law, and that summary judgment on the defamation claim was proper but that there were genuine fact issues on the wiretapping claim.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

NOTE – Summary judgment rulings made without any accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain the basis for the decision are frustrating for litigants and parties. This is especially true when no hearing was given. There are certainly cases where such rulings make sense, but when the parties have spent considerable time and energy in briefing issues it is helpful to know why you won or lost. Without an explanation of why summary judgment was granted or denied, litigants do not have an opportunity to see where they went wrong and hone their craft. It also does not help the parties focus the issues on appeal. It is clear that Rule 52 does not apply to summary judgments but rules can always be amended.

Evilsizer v. Beau Rivage Resorts, LLC, 2021-CA-01222-COA (Civil – Personal injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the owner of a cooking trailer who was sued by an 18-wheeler driver who struck the awning of the cooking trailer, holding that the there were no genuine fact issues where the evidence showed that the awning was closed approximately one hour before the collision and there was no evidence that the trailer owner opened the awning before the accident or had actual or constructive notice that the awning was open and extending into the roadway.
(8-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Boutwell v. Fairchild, 2021-CA-01046-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming termination of parent rights and allowing adoption, holding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, that the child was eligible for adoption because the chancery court had properly assumed original and exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and that the chancellor did not err in finding that parental rights should be terminated.
(8-2-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Green v. State, 2021-KA-00613-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s lesser-included instruction for simple domestic violence because the evidence did not support that instruction.
(10-0)

Taylor v. State, 2021-KA-00721-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of violating state law by living within 3,000 feet of a playground as a registered sex offender, holding that the sex-offender-registry law is not unconstitutionally vague by what is meant by “playground” or how 3,000 feet should be measured and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but reversing because the Google Earth map used to calculate the distance was not properly authenticated and contained hearsay.
(6-2-2: Judge Greenlee and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty)

NOTES – The majority and the partial dissent engage in a collegial discussion of whether the term “playground” encompasses the property on which a playground sits or just the playground itself, the dissent arguing for the narrow construction. Both the majority and the partial dissent have interesting analyses of the admissibility of Google Earth images and measurements generated by it (without much disagreement on this issue).

Colburn v. State, 2021-KA-00865-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction for sale of meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
(5-1-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald, and joined in part by Judge Lawrence)

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 6, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals wore me out with nine opinions today. There is something for just about everybody below including crimes, conservatorships, and contracts. One case includes a nightmare scenario where an order of dismissal was entered and the plaintiff’s attorney did not receive notice of it until well after the appeal deadline passed, and there is a special concurrence shining a beacon of hope for litigants who find themselves in this situation.

McLendon v. State, 2022-CP-00057-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary denial of a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that a proper factual basis was shown as to each element of the offense during the guilty plea.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00759-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of armed robbery and kidnapping, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on inadmissible testimony from the police chief that the defendant had been previously incarcerated for burglary.
(7-3-0: Judge McDonald specially concurred, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Westbrooks; Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.

N0te – Here is how the trial court handled the inadmissible testimony:

Owens v. State, 2021-KA-00887-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a business, holding that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence .
(7-3: Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald)

Note – The dissent argued that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and discussed the evidence that was presented. The dissent embedded into the opinion stills from surveillance videos that were shown to the jury was extremely helpful in understanding the evidence that was presented and that was being discussed.

State v. Hudson, 2021-KA-01232-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Dismissing the State’s appeal of a directed verdict of acquittal, holding that the appeal was not authorized by section 99-35-103(b) because the issues on appeal did not present the Court with a pure question of law.
(10-0)

The Banking Group, Inc. v. Southern Bancorp Bank, 2021-CA-01077-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendants on a breach of contract and fraud complaint related to fees the defendant allegedly owed the plaintiff for recruitment services, holding that there was a fact dispute over the existence of a contract.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Atkins v. Moore, 2021-CA-00780-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s final judgment approving a conservator’s final accounting, holding that the conservator had not misspent or converted funds and that the plaintiff was not otherwise entitled to relief.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Judge McDonald and joined in part by Judge McCarty)

Note – The Court of Appeals took issue with several aspects of the proceedings below, but found none warranted reversal. Here is the Court’s conclusion:

Another Note – This opinion cites a post by Jane Stroble Miller from Judge Larry Primeaux’s The Better Chancery Court Practice Blog, noting that it “provides a very helpful discussion on the need for ‘vouchers’ to support and accounting.” I fail to see a downside in favorably citing law blogs in judicial opinions.

Rhea v. Career General Agency, Inc., 2021-CA-00580-COA (Civil – Contract)
Dismissing the appeal in part and affirming in part, holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the order granting the motion to dismiss where it was not timely filed because counsel did not receive notice of the judgment and dismissing that part of the appeal and affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.
(8-2-0: Judge McCarty specially concurred, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith; Judge Emfinger concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

Practice Point – Judge McCarty’s special concurrence highlights a lifeline to litigants in the unfortunate situation of not receiving notice of an appealable judgment until after the deadline to file a notice of appeal:

Note – It is a credit to the appellee and appellee’s counsel for not arguing untimeliness under these circumstances at any point in the process.

DeSoto County v. Vinson, 2021-CC-00864-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors’ approval of a landowner’s application to subdivide a residential lot, holding that the landowner’s failure to accompany the application with names of persons adversely affected or directly interested and their signatures approving the division violated section 17-1-23(4).
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in the result only without separate written; Judge Wilson dissented)

Burchett v. State, 2021-KA-00776-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of murder, holding that there was no evidence to supporting a lesser-included instruction on heat of passion manslaughter.
(8-1-1: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined in part by Judge McDonald)

Other Orders

Young v. Freese & Goss, PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (denying rehearing)

Simpson County School District v. Wigley, 2021-CA-00009-COA (denying rehearing)

Boyd v. State, 2021-KA-00066 (denying rehearing)

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00538-COA (denying rehearing)

McGilberry v. Ross, 2021-CP-01076 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 20, 2022

[For reasons unknown, when I tried to publish this post earlier WordPress would only show the title with none of the content in the body. It seems to be working now. My apologies to those who have gotten multiple emails with no content.]

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four cases today, all civil. Two in particular are of general interest to civil practitioners. One deals with whether an et seq. or “catchall” defense was sufficient to preserve the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and the other reviews a discovery order from the trial court. Then there are two jurisdiction cases: one deciding whether the circuit court (as opposed to the oil and gas board) has jurisdiction to hear claims against an oil company and the other whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear imperfect but timely notices of appeal from local government decisions.

Tiger Production Company, LLC v. Pace, 2021-IA-00315-SCT (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss on interlocutory appeal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations that an oil company put a saltwater disposal line across the plaintiff’s property without permission were purely common law claims and could not be remedied by the MS Oil and Gas Board.
(8-0: Justice Beam did not participate)

Lawson v. City of Jackson, 2021-IA-00532-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part a discovery order from the trial court on interlocutory appeal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a protective order providing that a party did not have to respond to written discovery that would not be due until after the discovery deadline but holding that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the plaintiff’s access to public records and in preventing the plaintiff from introducing any such public records at trial.
(9-0)

Pruitt v. Sargent, 2021-CA-00511-SCT (Civil – Personal injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that the defendants waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to adequately plead it in their answer.
(6-2-0: Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice Griffis; Justice Beam concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

PRACTICE POINT – The Supreme Court laid down some black-letter law today on pleading the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and its reasoning probably applies to other affirmative defenses. The Court took a look at the defenses that were pleaded and found they fell short of the standard:

Then, the Court said flatly that et seq. didn’t cut it:

Longo v. City of Waveland, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal in two consolidated cases where the circuit court dismissed appeals from local governments for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a notice of appeal that is timely filed but that erroneously omits a petitioner’s name has a procedural defect that does not defeat jurisdiction and can be corrected.
(5-4: Justice Chamberlin dissented, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Maxwell, and Justice Beam.)

Other Orders

Bridges v. State, 2020-CT-00816-SCT (denying cert)
SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 18, 2022

We got five opinions today from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. There are two chancery cases, one dealing with termination of parental rights and another dealing with an appeal from a judgment of divorce, distribution, and child support. There is an appeal of a summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an unsuccessful appeal from a default judgment, and a criminal case challenging the admissibility of witness testimony.

Middlebrook v. Fuller, 2021-CA-00590-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment adjudicating paternity and terminating parental rights, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not err in making that determination contrary to the GAL’s recommendation.
(9-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion.)

Hill v. Central Sunbelt Federal Credit Union, 2021-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall case, holding that rainwater on a porch did not constitute a dangerous condition where it was actively raining, surveillance video showed that water was not pudding or accumulating on the porch, and there was no evidence of other falls.
(7-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, holding that the inadvertence by the defendant’s registered agent was not a legitimate explanation justifying the default and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant had not presented a sufficient colorable defense.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that a witness’s testimony that she saw the defendant with a firearm weeks before the incident was properly admitted and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on appeal from the chancery court’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the appellant waived her right to challenge the merits of her divorce because she failed to appear at the hearing on the merits, that she waived that issue of distribution of marital assets by failing to cite legal authority to support her claims on appeal, but reversing and remanding for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Ferguson and to issue written findings concerning the reasonableness of the amount of child support.
(8-2: Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee -“If there is ever a case for waiver, this is it.”)

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (denying rehearing)
Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 11, 2022

I did not post summaries last week because was out of town all week. I plan to do a post summarizing last week’s decisions at some point, but today is not that day because the Court of Appeals just handed down nine more opinions.

Today was a big day for Rule 4 and for workers’ comp, with two decisions for each of those subject areas. One of the workers’ comp decisions has a significant amount of analysis of the issue of whether the claimant overcame the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity. The other workers’ comp decision provides some clarity (and teeth) to the affirmative defense of intoxication. Additionally, we learned today that you should not white-out the defendant’s name on a summons after it is issued, write the name of the defendant to be served over the white-out, and then serve that altered summons on your defendant. There is also a divorce case dealing with child support, several criminal cases, and a lone PCR case.

Carnley v. State, 2021-KA-00438-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of rape, declining to reverse based on the exclusion of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement because no proffer was made and holding there was no error in the admission of expert testimony, that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, that the jury was properly instructed to continue its deliberation in lieu of a Sharplin instruction, and that the trial court did not commit cumulative error.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wharton v. State, 2021-CA-00136-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Procedure)
Reversing a default judgment on a civil asset forfeiture petition, holding that the State failed to “strictly” comply with the Rule 4 requirements for service by publication, that the respondent did not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process by failing to plead it in his answer because the answer was filed after the entry of default, and that the case should be remanded to give the State an opportunity to show good cause for failing to serve process before the statute of limitations expired.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion and Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE 1– There is a lot of civil and appellate procedure in this opinion (Miss. R. Civ. P. 4, 55; Miss. R. App. P. 2, 31). The appellate procedure ruling was interesting because the appellant missed his briefing deadline, but the Court of Appeals held that he should have been afforded 14 days to correct this “deficiency” and since he filed two days late he was within that window. This is interesting, but not a maneuver I plan to attempt.

Note 2 – I also want to point out this holding that although it is a fact-bound holding, these are facts one could find oneself bound up in.

Howard Industries v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of sanctions against the Employer’s counsel for attempting to mislead the Commission, the Commission’s finding that the claimant had overcome the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarding permanent disability benefits for her 2007 injury, and the Commission’s award of 38% industrial loss of use of her right upper extremity for her 2015 injury.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part (on the sanction issue), joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McCarty, and Judge Smith. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon the affirmative defense of intoxication, holding that the Employer’s payment of benefits did not estop the Employer from asserting the intoxication defense that was pleaded in the answer and that the very presence of marijuana in the claimant’s system raised the presumption of intoxication.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case seems to answer a question that has lingered since the MWCA was amended to add the intoxication defense about what the effect of a positive drug test that does not give any indication of the degree of intoxication. In this case, the Court of Appeals decisively that any amount of intoxication triggers the presumption. A claimant can still seek to overcome that presumption, but based on the Meek decision a claimant cannot overcome the presumption by pointing to a lack of proof of the level of marijuana in the claimant’s system.

Ponder v. Ponder, 2020-CA-01196-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding child support retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification but holding that there was no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees against the father for failing to comply with an agreed order.
(9-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Villareal v. State, 2021-CP-00440-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Carruthers v. State, 2021-KA-00654-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth trafficking as subsequent offender in possession of a firearm near a church and possession of firearm by felon, holding that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged failures to object at various points in the trial or for alleged failure to investigate or for alleged failure to stipulate to a prior felony to keep evidence of the prior felony.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Arrington v. Anderson, 2021-CA-00233-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of two identical negligence lawsuits, holding that a summons that was altered after issuance to change the name of the party to be summonsed to the defendant’s name and then served on the defendant was not valid service of process, that since process was not served the statute of limitations had expired the first lawsuit, and that the second lawsuit was not a “refiling” of the first since it was filed while the first suit was still pending.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Daniels v. State, 2021-KA-01067-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of armed robbery, two counts and aggravated assault, one count of house burglary, and one count of grand larceny, holding that the circuit court did not err in telling the jury panel that the defendant was charged as a habitual offender or in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about the defendant’s apprehension, arrest, and felony charges that immediately followed the activities for which he was convicted in this trial.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (denying rehearing)
Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (denying rehearing)
Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (granting appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief)
Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying State’s motion to dismiss appeal)

Hand Down List