Tag: Expert Witnesses

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 14, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There was nary a dissent, but a conviction of child exploitation was reversed. The are other felony opinions, two divorce cases, a contract case involving a defunct LLC, and a PCR case.

Nunn v. State, 2021-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of having meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mental competency evaluation where the trial court twice held a hearing to determine whether the defendant understood and appreciated the significance of the trial proceedings and had the ability to rationally aid in his defense or in denying the defendant’s entrapment instruction.
(10-0)

Singh v. State, 2022-CP-00273-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding no error in revoking post-release supervision since the plaintiff absconded from supervision.
(10-0)

Williams v. Williams, 2021-CA-00758-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor’s valuation of the marital residence was based on evidentiary support in the record.
(10-0)

Wakefield v. State, 2021-KA-00187-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of accessory after the fact to murder, to kidnapping, and to auto theft, holding:
1. The circuit court had jurisdiction because it sat in one of the counties where the crimes were committed;
2. That the convictions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause even though the defendant gave just one car ride because he was an accessory to three distinct felonies so the merger doctrine did not apply;
3. That there was no error based on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence;
4. That the indictment was not defective for failing to include “intent” where it did include “willfully;” and
5. That there was no error in admitting autopsy and crime scene photos.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Emfinger did not participate)

NOTE – These convictions stemmed from the kidnapping and murder of six-year-old Kingston Frazier in 2017.

Holmes v. Lankford, 2022-CA-00203-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment for the defendant in a dispute over a sand and gravel operation agreement, holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to enforce the agreement that was between the defendant and the plaintiff’s administratively dissolved LLC and that the plaintiff did not otherwise show he was entitled to relief.
(10-0)

NOTE – Conducting business through an LLC can cut both ways:

Mason v. State, 2021-KA-00964-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of child exploitation, holding that the trial court erred in denying funds for an independent computer forensics expert because the State’s witness/detective should have been considered an expert and that this error hindered the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge and led to evidentiary errors that contributed to an unfair trial.
(7-3-0: Wilson, Smith, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Modified opinion on motion for rehearing affirming the chancellor’s decision granting the wife divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support that finding (read the facts for yourself if you have doubts), that the subject matter of wife’s expert’s opinions was adequately disclosed and was not even a basis for the chancellor’s decision, and the husband’s claim for separate maintenance was moot since the divorce was affirmed.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Hornsby v. Hornsby, 2020-CA-01091-COA (dismissing motion for attorney’s fees)

Blount v. State, 2021-KA-00204-COA (denying rehearing)

Mayberry v. Cottonport Hardwoods, 2021-CA-00246-COA (denying rehearing)

Anderson v. State, 2021-KA-01340-COA (granting pro se motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing and recalling mandate)

Easterling v. State, 2022-CA-00796-COA (vacating circuit court’s order and rendering judgment dismissing motion for PCR)

Hunter v. State, 2022-TS-01269-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 13, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today. There are several interesting criminal cases and a couple of PCR cases. But the two opinions that strike me as the most significant are a med mal case and a wills and estates case. The med mal decision reversed summary judgment for the hospital, holding that the layman’s exception to the usual expert witness requirement applied. The wills case addressed the effect of a decedent’s handwritten note forgiving a promissory note upon his death by “accident or sickness” after he died by suicide.

Barfield v. State, 2021-KA-00660-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of accessory after the fact to murder and denial of post-trial motions, holding that the evidence that the defendant was included in conversations leading up to the effort to conceal the victim’s body and was present (but did not physically participate) during those efforts was sufficient; that the trial court did not err in giving instructions on aiding and abetting, accomplice testimony, or the definitions of “conceal” and “participate,” or in refusing an instruction that the defendant had no duty to disclose the location of the body to the police; that the trial court did not err by allowing certain rebuttal testimony; that the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing testimony by State’s witnesses that they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and accessory after the fact.
(7-3: Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald)

Smith v. State, 2021-KA-01104-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the entirety of the defendant’s firearms expert’s testimony but that this error was harmless and that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Holliday Construction, LLC v. George County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00667-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming trial court’s decision stemming from the County’s award of contract for hurricane debris cleanup to an out-of-state company, holding that the County’s award was illegal but not arbitrary and capricious; that the trial court had authority to allow the County to reject all bids, re-advertise, and allow re-bids for the work; and that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s compensatory damages claim since the plaintiff failed to show it was entitled to the original award of the contract.
(8-1-1: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion)

Hornsby v. Hornsby, 2020-CA-01091-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions related to child support, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the father’s request for reduction in child support, did not err in finding that the mother was not in contempt, and did not err in awarding the mother attorney’s fees.
(7-0: Judge Carlton, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith did not participate)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-01180-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing denial of PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiff did not need to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to file his PCR motion.
(10-0)

Obert v. AABC Property Management, LLC, 2021-CA-00612-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of two complaints for collection on two promissory notes, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding that a handwritten note from the decedent stating that a $700,000 promissory note would be forgiven if he died by “accident or sickness” was a holographic codicil to his will or in ruling that his death by suicide was death by “sickness” because it was causally related to debilitating medical issues surrounding his prostate cancer.
(10-0)

Clark v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, 2021-CA-00173-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital in a med mal case, holding that the layman’s exception to the typical expert requirement applied in this case where a nurse allowed a 10-day-old baby to fall to the floor and reversing the dismissal of that aspect of the suit, but affirming denial of the other med mal claims for lack of expert testimony.
(Judge Greenlee concurred in part (application of the layman’s exception) and dissented in part (he would have remanded with ruling on the remaining claims) joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Lawrence)

Practice Point – The Court of Appeals noted that the layman’s exception had not previously been extended to “falls” cases, but distinguished this case from other “falls” cases involving post-op or elderly patients.

Colenberg v. State, 2021-CA-00673-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was not sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, Judge Emfinger; Judge McDonald did not participate)

Other Orders

Gardner v. Jackson, 2020-CA-01313-COA (denying rehearing)

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (denying rehearing)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (denying rehearing)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (denying rehearing)

Jones v. State, 2021-CP-01088-COA (denying rehearing)

Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (granting pro se appellant’s pro se motion to recall mandate)

Ross v. State, 2022-TS-00901-COA (denying appellant’s pro se motion to show cause and dismissing untimely appeal)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 29, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals returned from Thanksgiving break with five opinions. Two cases are medical malpractice cases (one an appeal of summary judgment for lack of expert testimony and the other an appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration). Two are criminal cases, and the other case is a custody case with cross motions for modification and a motion for contempt.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00908-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree, deliberate design murder, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a detective to exclude testimony about other investigations and noting that the Confrontation Clause does not open the door to irrelevant testimony on cross-examination.
(10-0)

Mixon v. Berry, 2021-CA-00494-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a doctor in a med mal case for lack of medical expert testimony, holding that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to produce sworn expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, breach, and proximate cause, and that the trial court did not err in not granting a 56(f) continuance that was not requested or in denying the motion for reconsideration.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is some useful black-letter law from this opinion:

Turnage v. State, 2021-KA-01229-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of a high school teacher of two counts of sexual battery of a student, holding that there were no issues warranting reversal after reviewing appellate counsel’s Lindsey brief and independently reviewing the record.
(10-0)

Lamy v. Lamy, 2021-CA-00770-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s rulings on competing complaints for modification and a motion for contempt, holding that the chancellor did not err in admitting evidence used by the GAL and attached to her report, did not err in classifying one agreed custody order as temporary but did err by interpreting that order as awarding sole physical custody to the mother, and did not err in not finding the mother in contempt.
(5-1-4: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in dissent in part without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty, and joined in part by Judge McDonald.)

Note – In response to the motion for contempt, the mother pleaded COVID in her explanation of why she kept the children during the father’s period of custody. The dissent didn’t buy the excuse:

Durant Healthcare, LLC v. Garrette, 2021-CA-00823-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death case, holding that the evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that the resident lacked the mental capacity to sign the nursing home’s arbitration agreement on the date of admission, that the resident’s daughter did not have authority to sign as his agent, and that the proof was sufficiently clear to affirm the trial court’s denial of the facility’s request for arbitration-related discovery.
(7-3: Judge Carlton dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence.)

Other Orders

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 20, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and only one was PCR! There are three criminal cases (one of which reversed a conviction as to one count on a jury instruction issue). There are two MTCA cases (one reversing summary judgment in a med mal case and one reversing a bench trial judgment finding police-protection immunity), two divorce cases, and an involuntary commitment case.

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a conviction for burglary and automobile theft, holding that the conviction of burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence but reversing the conviction for auto theft because the jury was not properly instructed as to the value of the stolen vehicle. The case was remanded for retrial on the auto theft count.
(10-0)

Brock v. State, 2021-KA-00739-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of methamphetamine, holding that even if the defendant could prove that her counsel was ineffective she had not proven that but for such professional errors the result would have been different.
(10-0)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying husband’s amended complaint for divorce, holding that the chancellor did not commit clear error in determining that the husband had failed to prove the elements for a divorce based on adultery or irreconcilable differences.
(10-0)

W.C. v. J.C., 2021-CA-00237-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming chancellor’s decision setting aside an agreed order of involuntary commitment and dismissing the action after treatment was completed, holding (1) the agreed order was properly dismissed because the motion to set aside was not untimely, (2) the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the terms of the order had been substantively complied with, (3) evidence from an professional organization monitoring the treatment for professional licensure was admissible, (4) the chancellor did not err in ruling that the petitioner had no standing to object to the motion to set aside the agreed order, and (5) there was no ground for the chancellor to convene a hearing to “protect the interests of the minor children.”
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00915-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove an exception to the statute of limitations, that the sentence was not illegal, and that the indictment was not defective.
(8-2: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

German v. State, 2021-KA-00933-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court’s finding that the defendant was sane when the crime was committed was supported by substantial evidence and the jury’s finding was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the defendant waived issues related to the reliability of a medical expert’s testimony by failing to object at trial.
(9-0: Judge Westbrooks did not participate.)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting the wife divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support that finding (read the facts for yourself if you have doubts), that the subject matter of wife’s expert’s opinions was adequately disclosed and was not even a basis for the chancellor’s decision, and the husband’s claim for separate maintenance was moot since the divorce was affirmed.
(10-0)

St. Andrie v. Singing River Health System, 2021-CA-00042-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s independent negligence claim against the hospital on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the hospital failed to protect the plaintiff from the doctor’s negligence arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the doctor’s negligence and therefore the independent negligence claims against the hospital related back to the date of the original complaint that asserted an independent negligence claim against the doctor and a vicarious liability claim against the hospital.
(7-2-0: Judge Greenlee concurred in result only, joined by Judge Emfinger and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding after a bench trial that the City was protected by police-protection immunity after an officer’s vehicle crossed an intersection against a red light and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle while the officer was responding to an emergency, holding that the facts of this case met the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for finding reckless disregard and that the officer acted with conscious indifference to the safety of the public and the certain parts of the police chief’s testimony were not credible.
( 5-4: Judge Lawrence dissented, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger; Judge Greenlee did not participate.)

NOTE– The Court of Appeals declined the appellant’s invitation to adopt a “reckless disregard per se” rule and maintained the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Other Orders

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (denying rehearing)
Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of April 7, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today. I think Weber v. Estate of Hill will be a frequently cited case on the issue of medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. There is also an insurance coverage decision (where the court granted interlocutory appeal and then affirmed the circuit court), another medical malpractice case dealing with a hospital’s lack of liability for treatment plans of independent physicians, a contempt of youth court case, and a Mississippi Bar disciplinary decision.

Donaldson v. Cotton, 2020–CA-00581-SCT (Civil – Other/Contempt)
Vacating the a youth court judge’s order of contempt against a county prosecutor fining him for past and continuing refusal to draft youth court orders, holding that youth court judges have inherent authority to order a county prosecutor to prepare orders in youth court matters but that the alleged contempt was constructive criminal contempt and thus the attorney’s due process rights were violated. The order was vacated, the case was remanded, and the youth court judge was direct to recuse for further proceedings.
(Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

Weber v. Estate of Hill, 2020-CA-00293-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Causation/Experts)
Denying rehearing and and modifying two paragraphs (¶ 37 and ¶ 38) of the original opinion. On direct appeal, the supreme court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for JNOV that argued there was no admissible expert testimony on causation, holding that the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s medical experts provided a basis for a juror to reasonably conclude that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome even though that expert testified that he lacked the expertise necessary to quantify the degree to which the labor and delivery process aggravated the injury. On cross appeal, the supreme court reversed the circuit court’s reduction of the jury’s $2,538,322 award for non-economic damages, holding that this action filed in December 2002 was governed by Mississippi’s wrongful-death statute because the medical-malpractice noneconomic-damages cap was not in place until September 1, 2004.
(Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Coleman and Justice Maxwell. Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

NOTE: This was a big win for the plaintiff and it is a must-read case on medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. I have not read the record, but my understanding from the majority opinion and the dissent is that no expert specifically testified that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome. Instead, the supreme court allowed the jury to “connect the dots” (the “dots” being other pieces of expert testimony) in determining that the plaintiff satisfied that causation standard even though the plaintiff’s obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine expert testified he was not qualified to connect these dots and give an opinion as to the percentage aggravation would be.

Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Powell, 2020-IA-00432-SCT (Civil – Insurance/Coverage)
On interlocutory appeal, affirming the circuit court’s denial of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage, no duty to defend/indemnify, and no duty to pay medpay benefits, holding that a fall from scaffolding that was erected on a trailer that was hitched to an insured pickup was an auto accident arising out of the use and ownership of the covered vehicles.
(Justice Maxwell concurred in result only, joined by Justice Chamberlain and Justice Griffis, and joined by Justice Coleman in part.)

St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital v. Newton, 2020-IA-00494-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the Mississippi law does not impose a duty on a hospital to require peer review of a treatment plan before allowing a doctor and patient to use its facilities.
(Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King.)

PRACTICE POINT: This is less-than-ideal feedback to receive from the supreme court…

Other Orders

Howell v. State, 2020-CA-00868-SCT (directing the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following issue: Whether the Court should overrule Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010), and any other case in which, and to the extent that, we have held the fundamental rights exception to the procedural bars may be applied to the three-year statute of limitations codified by the Legislature in the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act)

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (granting cert)

Newell v. State, 2020-CT-01137-SCT (denying cert)

Thornhill v. Walker-Hill Environmental, 2020-CT-01181-SCT (granting cert)

The Mississippi Bar v. Malone, 2021-BD-00467-SCT (suspending attorney Robert W. Malone for two years)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of March 17, 2022

The folks publishing the hand down lists are not on spring break. There were four opinions today that are must-reads for anyone whose law practice these opinions touch. There is a medical malpractice/expert testimony decision, a dismissal for failure to prosecute decision that is more about the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, a breach of commercial lease opinion, and a will probate opinion.

Claiborne County Hospital v. Truitt, 2020-IA-01017-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Summary Judgment/Experts)
The plaintiff fell while walking to the restroom to give a urine sample. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the hospital, alleging that a nurse failed to assist him to the restroom. The hospital filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked medical expert testimony. The plaintiff argued that the layman’s exception applied or, alternatively, that the plaintiff had identified the requisite expert testimony in an interrogatory answer. The circuit court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment and the Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in favor of the hospital, holding that “the layman’s exception does not apply to the facts of this case because Truitt’s claim involves the rendering of medical services and a nurse’s professional judgment for which expert testimony is required.” The Supreme Court also held that the designation via interrogatory answer was insufficient because the “designation does not provide sworn expert testimony” and noting that the plaintiff “only provided the name of his expert and a brief description of the anticipated testimony.”
(All justices concurred)

Leasy v. SW Gaming, LLC, 2019-CT-01505-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Failure to Prosecute/Standard of Review)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the circuit court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for failure to prosecute, holding that the Court of Appeals improperly reweighed the evidence and reaffirming the controlling abuse-of-discretion standard.
(Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens. Justice Beam did not participate in the decision)
(Note: At the Court of Appeals level, Judge Carlton wrote a dissent that was joined by Judge Wilson)

Practice Point – Standards of review matter! The Mississippi Supreme Court has shown a renewed interest in standards of review. This opinion is more about the standard of review than it is about the failure to prosecute. The Supreme Court described the Court of Appeals’ incorrect application of the standard of review as follows:

The Supreme Court bluntly concluded:

Holcomb, Dunbar, Watts, Best, Masters & Golmon, P.A. v. 400 South Lamar Oxford Mad Hatter Partners, LLC, 2019-CT-01702-SCT (Civil – Real Property/Landlord-Tenant Law/Commercial Real Estate)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the tenant’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the landlord’s claims for back rent, holding that the landlord’s demand for possession and the tenant’s departure from the premises did not prevent the landlord from recovering back rent; affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to the landlord based upon material breaches by the tenant; affirming the Court of Appeals’ finding that the tenant’s mitigation argument was waived because it was not raised prior to the appeal; affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision granting the landlord’s motion to quash the tenant’s request for records related to a news story a spat between the landlord’s principal and another developer because those records were not relevant to the appeal; and affirming the circuit court’s denial of the tenant’s untimely motion to amend to add claims of libel and libel per se because they were delayed and barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
(All participating justices concurred.)

In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Luke Beard, Deceased: Antonio Christmas v. Diane Christmas, 2019-CT-01821-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Probate)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating the chancery court’s dismissal of a petition to probate a purported will, holding that in the absence of the testimony of at least one subscribing witness, a proponent of a will must prove the handwriting of the testator and at least two subscribing witnesses. This unanimous, textualist decision centered around whether the phrase “or some of them” in section 91-7-7 referred to the subscribing witnesses or collectively to the testator and the subscribing witnesses. Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted Judge Wilson’s analysis of the textual quandary from his dissent at the Court of Appeals, holding:

The Mississippi Bar v. Henderson, 2021-BD-01141-SCT (Civil – Bar Matters)
Imposing a reciprocal public censure to an attorney publicly censured in Tennessee and assessing costs.

Other Orders

Dille v. State, 2019-CT-00855-SCT (denying petitions for cert)
Lairy v. Chandler, 2019-CT-01423-SCT (granting petition for cert)
Cork v. State, 2020-KA-00060-SCT (denying pro se motion for rehearing)
Magnolia Health Plan, Inc. v. Mississippi’s Community Health Commissions, 2020-CA-00167-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List