Tag: JNOV

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 28, 2026

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions today. There is a real property/redemption case, a case that turns on an appellate jurisdiction issue, a contempt/recusal case, and a case reversing the denial of a motion for JNOV.

Vanaman v. American Pride Properties, LLC, 2024-CA-01434-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s award of redemption damages and denial of restitution on remand after a tax sale was invalidated, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the original owner failed to prove that he was entitled to damages for modifications or restitution for fair rental value or in finding that the original owner owed the tax-sale purchaser damages to redeem the property.
(10-0: St. Pe’ for the Court)

Ryland v. Regions Bank, 2025-CP-00178-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of an appeal from justice court, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely.
(10-0: St. Pe’ for the Court)

In Re: Ross, 2024-CP-01233-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancery court’s order of contempt and denial of motion for recusal, holding that the record showed that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of direct criminal contempt and that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in denying the motion to recuse.
(8-1-0: Weddle for the Court; McCarty specially concurred; Westbrooks did not participate)

Rogers v. Green, 2024-CA-01194-COA (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for JNOV, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of invasion of privacy.
(8-1-1: Carlton for the Court; McCarty concurred in result only without writing; McDonald dissented without writing)

Other Orders

  • Wright v. State, 2024-KA-00225-COA (denying rehearing)
  • White v. State, 2024-KA-00658-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Carroll v. State, 2024-CT-00875-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Hayes v. Magee Benevolent Foundation, 2024-CA-00910-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Barnes v. City of McComb, 2024-CA-000989-COA (denying unopposed motion for leave to file corrected motion for rehearing)
  • Wright v. Jenkins, 2024-CA-01424-COA (granting motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
  • Mize v. Nunmaker, 2025-CA-000089-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 22, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases dealing with issues that occurred during voir dire. In one, the issue was an inculpatory exclamation by the defendant. In the other, the issue was two jurors’ undisclosed connection the defendant. The third opinion is a journey through contempt law.

Scott v. State, 2021-KA-01015-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion denying the defendant’s attorney’s request for a mistrial after the defendant exclaimed during voir dire that he was “guilty as hell.”
(9-0)

Note – This decision seems correct to me.

Watts v. State, 2021-KA-00873-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming denial of a JNOV after the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a denial, holding that although two jurors did not disclose that they were related to a man who was murdered by the defendant’s brother in 2006 the court did not commit clear error in determining after an evidentiary hearing that those jurors lacked substantial knowledge of their connection with the defendant during voir dire.
(9-0)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
This decision waded into a morass of contempt and affirmed the chancellor in part, reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s finding that two attorneys handling a divorce proceeding were in direct criminal contempt for missing a hearing, vacating the penalty for that because it exceeded statutory authority and remanded on that issue, and affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to the other side. The Supreme Court vacated judgment of direct criminal contempt against another attorney and remanded for proceedings on under the constructive criminal contempt standards. The Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in finding these attorneys in direct criminal contempt for violating a court order and remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced.
(6-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Coleman.)

Practice Point – Don’t miss hearings. Don’t violate orders. If you have further questions about what went wrong here or about the intricacies of direct criminal contempt, indirect/constructive criminal contempt, and civil contempt I refer refer you to the opinion and wish you the best.

Other Orders

Hamer v. State, 2019-CT-01633-SCT (denying cert)
Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CT-00728-SCT (denying cert)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-01308-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)

Hand Down List