Tag: Defamation

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of November 14, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today. There is an ESLA case, a restrictive covenants case, two direct criminal appeals with reversals, and a significant defamation case.

In Re Validation of up to $27,600,000 Trust Certificates Evidencing Proportional Interests in a Lease by The Simpson County School District: Floyd v. Simpson County School Board, 2023-CA-01126-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision validating of trust certificates for a lease/leaseback transaction to fund construction of a school, holding that nunc pro tunc amendment to the June 10, 2021 minutes was lawful, that the Board’s notice satisfied statutory requirements of the ESLA, that the objecter was afforded adequate due process as required by the ESLA, that the Board had authority to create a nonprofit corporation, and that the ESLA is still applicable.
(8-0: Griffis did not participate.)

Smith v. Brockway, 2023-CA-01027-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of a petition for injunction and declaratory relief related to restrictive covenants and manufactured housing, holding that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable because they were not signed by the grantor.
(9-0)

Toler v. State, 2023-KA-00712-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming in part and reversing in part after the defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault, one count of shooting into a motor vehicle, four counts of aggravated assault against officers, and failure to stop a motor vehicle for law enforcement, holding (1) that there was sufficient evidence to support the three challenged convictions of aggravated assault against officers who were shot at but not struck, (2) that the indictment was multiplicitous for charging the defendant with for counts of aggravated assault based on firing one shot at four individuals such that merger applied warranting a remand to vacate, merge, and resentence, and (3) that the trial court did not abuse its discretion excluding evidence of the defendant’s peaceful character.
(9-0)

Fagan v. Faulkner, 2022-CT-00130-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the Court of Appeals and reversing the judgments of the circuit court and county court in a defamation case, holding that the circuit court and county court erred by denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict because as atrocious as the vulgarity was, it was non-actionable “name calling” that did not defame the plaintiff’s professional abilities.
(5-4: Randolph dissented, joined by Kitchens, King, and Ishee)

Ratcliff v. State, 2022-CT-00690-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and the conviction of possession of a stolen firearm, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the defendant’s guilty knowledge to merit a jury question on that charge.
(8-0: Randolph did not participate)

Other Orders

  • In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (appointing or reappointing as members of the Advisory Committee on Rules: Hon. Latrice A. Westbrooks, Hon. Carter Bise, Hon. W. Ashley Hines, Hon. Carol Jones Russell, William M. Gage, Esq., Justin T. Cook, Esq., Graham P. Carner, Esq., and Nicholas K. Thompson, Esq.)
  • Estate of Green v. Michini, 2022-CT-00365-SCT (denying cert)
  • Chatman v. State, 2023-KA-00583-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • In Re Validation of up to $27,600,000 Trust Certificates Evidencing Proportional Interests in a Lease by The Simpson County School District: Floyd v. Simpson County School Board, 2023-CA-01126-SCT (granting motion for leave to file a corrected reply brief)

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 Court of Appeals Decisions of April 11, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today (eight, if you count each of the three PCR cases that were consolidated). The list starts off PCR heavy, but then we pick up a reverse-Batson/criminal appeal, a personal injury/borrowed servant case, and a defamation case.

Simoneaux v. State, 2022-CP-00532-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s third PCR motion, holding that there was no error in finding that the PCR motion was successive and time-barred.
(9-0: McCarty did not participate)

Holliday v. State, 2022-CA-00149-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on the plaintiff’s knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

Blackmore v. State, 2021-CA-00743-COA (Civil – PCR)
consolidated with
White v. State, 2021-CA-00744 COA
consolidated with
Traxler v. State, 2021-CA-00769-COA
Affirming denials of motions in three separate cases arguing that the plaintiffs’ classifications as violent offenders was unconstitutional, holding that Tenth Amendment reserved to Mississippi the right to define DUI as a crime of violence and that enactment of section 97-3-2 superseded the holding in Smith v. State, 942 So. 2d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006), expressly overruling Smith.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Smith v. State, 2021-KA-01003-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming first-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in returning four jurors back to the venire after a “reverse-Batson challenge” by the State or in admitting autopsy photos.
(7-3: McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald; Westbrooks and McDonald also concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion)

Dawson v. Burgs, 2021-CA-01038-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants where the plaintiff was allegedly injured by a coworker, holding the plaintiff (an employee of the defendant temporary staffing agency) was a “borrowed servant” of Dollar General and therefore the alleged tortfeasor (who was an employee of Dollar General) was immune for suit under the MWCA which precluded his direct liability and the staffing agency’s vicarious liability.
(8-2: Westbrooks dissented joined by McDonald)

NOTE – This is a good reminder that substance prevails over form prevail when classifying someone as an “employee” or “independent contractor”:

Fagan v. Faulkner, 2022-CA-00130-COA (Civil – Torts)
Reversing bench trial verdict for the plaintiff in a defamation case, holding that an obscene outburst by a surgeon directed at a nurse were not actionable as slander per se because the evidence did not show the surgeon spoke them in relation to the nurse’s capability to perform her job.
(6-4: McCarty dissented, joined by Carlton, Westbrooks, and McDonald; McDonald also dissented without separate written opinion)

Other Orders

Thomas v. State, 2021-CP-00060-COA (granting motion to recall mandate)

Rhea v. Career General Agency, Inc., 2021-CA-00580-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00759-COA (denying rehearing)

Hull v. State, 2022-CP-00088-COA (recalling mandate and accepting petition for rehearing as timely)

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