Tag: Discretionary Function

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

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

April 3, 2025

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

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

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

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

Other Orders

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

Hand Down Page

April 10, 2025

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

Other Orders

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

Hand Down Page

April 17, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Other Orders

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

Hand Down Page

April 24, 2025

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

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

Other Orders

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

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court decisions of April 28, 2022

After some sort of technical hiccup with the State’s web domain that knocked the Mississippi Supreme Court’s website offline for a spell, they are back in business. The Court handed down one hearty opinion in a wrongful death case that involves § 1983, qualified immunity, the MTCA, the appealability of summary judgment denials, and hearsay.

City of Jackson v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (Civil – Tort/Wrongful Death/1983/MTCA)
Reversing and rendering a jury verdict holding the City liable under § 1983 and affirming the trial court’s judgment finding the City liable under the MTCA for the decedent’s wrongful death. The victim was murdered shortly after calling 911 to report a prowler. The dispatcher did not tell the victim to remain on the line, in violation of the City’s policies and procedure. Two JPD officers went to the victim’s house, did not detect that the prowler had entered a window, did not make contact with the victim, and left. The victim was found dead the next day. The victim’s family filed suit under § 1983 and under the MTCA.

The 911 operator and officers got out via qualified immunity on summary judgment. The § 1983 case was tried by a jury and the MTCA case was tried “simultaneously” before the bench. The jury found that the City violated the victim’s constitutional rights to due process and awarded $1M in damages. The trial court awarded $500,000 (i.e. the statutory maximum) under the MTCA.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the City was entitled to a directed verdict on the § 1983 claim, reasoning that our constitutional due process rights do not include the right to be protected by the state from acts of private violence. Regarding the MTCA claim, the Supreme Court held that the 911 dispatcher’s conduct in responding to the victim’s call did not involve an element of choice or judgment and the City was therefore not protected by discretionary function immunity from liability under the MTCA.

There was a hearsay issue involving the defendant’s statement contained in the police report that warrants a brief discussion. The trial court admitted the police report, but with the assailant’s statement to police redacted, finding that the assailant could not be compelled to testify against himself and that hearsay exception in Rule 804(b)(3) did not apply because the statement was not being used against the assailant/declarant. Later in the trial, the court allowed the plaintiff’s expert to reply on the assailant’s statement in forming his opinions over the City’s objection that the expert had relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court did not have to address the argument that the expert’s testimony was a “conduit for otherwise inadmissible hearsay” because it held that that the assailant’s statement to police was admissible under the Rule 804(b)(3) exception after all, so there was no error in admitting the expert testimony that relied upon it.

(Chief Justice Randolph wrote a special concurrence, joined in part by Justice Maxwell, Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis. Justice Griffis also wrote a special concurrence.)

Practice Point – I found it remarkable that the Mississippi Supreme Court heretofore had not addressed the issue of whether the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed after a trial. They did here, and now we know:

One More Thing – We were this close (maybe) to the Mississippi Supreme Court addressing one of my pet issues: When a case involves an MTCA defendant and a non-MTCA defendant how, exactly, should a hybrid bench/jury trial proceed?

resolving-the-conflictDownload

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the State’s Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal in Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief)

Randle v. Randle, 2020-CT-0033-SCT (granting cert)

McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT (denying Motion Pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is hereby denied and remanding to the chancery court of Grenada County for an adjudication of a request for release on bond pending appeal in light of his child support payment subsequent to the February 24, 2022 denial of his prior motion)

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (CORRECTION: granting cert 6-0)

Williams v. State, 2020-KA-772-SCT (denying rehearing)

Morningstar v. Perkins Law Firm, 2020-CT-1203-SCT (denying cert)

Embrey v. Young, 2021-CT-91-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page