Tag: Heirship

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 9, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions yesterday. Three are appeals of felony convictions and the others are an heirship case, a worker’s comp case, and a reversal in a PCR case.

Oats v. State, 2024-KA-00278-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of manslaughter, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after the jury declared itself hung and that the issue was doubly procedurally-barred and that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of it.
(7-3: Lawrence for the Court; McDonald dissented without writing; Westbrook dissented, joined by McDonald and Lassitter St. Pe’)

Chamblee v. State, 2024-KA-00556-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of gratification of lust, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for change of venue, in denying a motion for mistrial, in excluding false-accusation evidence, or in excluding sexually explicit photographs, and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: McDonald for the Court)

Physicians’ Pain and Spin Specialists, PLLC v. Kluczkowski, 2025-WC-00069-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the employer was subject to the MWCA and that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, holding that there was substantial evidence that the employer regularly employed at least five employees and that the claimant presented substantial evidence of a compensable injury.
(10-0: McDonald for the Court)

O’Callaghan v. State, 2024-KA-00415-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding holding trial in absentia or in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial based on a juror’s remark.
(7-3-0: Carlton for the Court; Westbrooks and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Estate of Dorsey v. Matory, 2024-CA-00925-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment in an heirship dispute, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that a prior adoption petition and proceeding constituted an adjudication of paternity of and legitimacy, that the adopted child was an heir-at-law of his biological father entitled to a share of his estate, or that equity favored not applying the one-year statute of limitations.
(8-2-0: Barnes for the Court; Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald and McCarty)

Shelton v. State, 2024-CA-00435-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing the denial of a PCR petition, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in holding that a revised State’s expert opinion does not merit reversal and that arguments regarding ineffective assistance and factual innocence are moot since the case was remanded for new trial.
(7-3: Barnes for the Court; Emfinger concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Lawrence and Weddle)

Other Orders

  • Moyer v. Blades, 2023-CA-01180-COA (denying rehearing)
  • James v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, 2024-CA-00459 (denying rehearing)
  • Snyder v. Pilger, 2024-CA_00460-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Carroll v. State, 2024-KA-00481-COA (recalling mandate and granting pro se motion for additional time to file motion for rehearing)
  • Cole v. Fish, 2024-CA-00508-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Corr Properties, LLC v. City of Oxford, 2024-CC-00665-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Graves v. State, 2024-KA-00691-COA (recalling mandate and granting pro se motion to file motion for rehearing otu of time)
  • Haddad v. State, 2025-TS-01229-COA (dismissing application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and granting time for the pro se appellat to file the motion in circuit court)
  • Reid v. State, 2025-TS-01261-COA (suspending deadling to file appeal to allow appeal to proceed on its merits)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 7, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions of substance yesterday. There is a divorce case, a timber case, a felony, a visitation/in loco parentis case, an heirship case, and a UM/UIM case with an interesting procedural question.

Hodge v. Hodge, 2024-CA-00745-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision granting the ex-wife’s petition to set aside a final divorce degree arguing that she was forced to sign it under duress, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in finding the Rule 60(b)(4) motion timely, that section 93-5-2(5) did not apply because the complaint was not contested, that the chancellor erred by determining that the final divorce decree should be set aside in part because of the ex-husband’s claim splitting, and that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the ex-husband committed fraud.
(9-0: Lawrence for the Court; Barnes did not participate)

Payne Logging, LLC v. Smith, 2024-CA-00439-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the chancellor’s award of monetary damages in a landowner’s claim against a logging company that removed timber off their property without permission while logging a neighbor’s property, holding that the chancery court did not err in applying the statutory guidelines in section 95-5-10.
(10-0: Westbrooks for the Court)

Hall v. State, 2024-KA-00364-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of attempted capital murder, holding the the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Edwards v. Johnson, 2023-CA-01271-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision denying a petition to establish visitation by a non-parent, holding that the chancellor erred in applying the doctrine of unclean hands before determining the petitioner’s in loco parentis status and, if necessary, reaching the issue of whether visitation was in the child’s best interest.
(6-3: Carlton for the Court; Weddle concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Wilson dissented; Emfinger dissented, joined in part by Wilson and Weddle; Lawrence did not participate)

In the Matter of Estate of Lewis: Curry v. Thomas, 2024-CA-00346-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision establishing paternity, holding that the one-year limitation for paternity is self-executing and thus cannot be waived and that the petitioner was barred from asserting an heirship claim because she did not attempt to establish paternity until almost eighteen years after her putative father’s death.
(7-3*: Barnes for the Court; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald, McCarty, and Lassitter St Pe’)

Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2024-CA-00393-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of a UM carrier, holding that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict for the UM carrier because there was no proof that the tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist and UM/UIM status was a question for the jury, that the UM carrier did not waive the argument that UM coverage was not applicable because the carrier did not have a duty to prove that the tortfeastor was an uninsured motorist, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.
(7-3: Barnes for the Court; McDonald dissented without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald)

Practice Point – McCarty’s dissent took issue with the directed verdict being granted during the damages phase of trial in front of the jury:

Other Orders

  • Davis v. State, 2023-KA-00884-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Quinn v. State, 2023-KA-01143-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page