Tag: Parental Rights

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 1, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One addressed whether a father who relinquished parental rights qualified as a wrongful death beneficiary of the child. The other addressed the status of the “colorable interest standard” for standing analysis. There was also an order granting a petition for reinstatement to the bar.

Gibson v. McNatt, 2023-CA-00007-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming the chancery court’s finding that a deceased minor’s father who had previously relinquished all parental duties and rights in Texas was not a wrongful death beneficiary under Mississippi law, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion because the Texas termination order was valid and was not subject to collateral attack under Mississippi law.
(9-0)

Pearson v. Eubanks, 2022-CT-00011-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the Court of Appeals that reversed the chancery court’s ruling, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the petitioners had standing, but emphasizing that the Court of Appeals has improperly relied on the “colorable interest standard” that has been abandoned by the Supreme Court.
(8-1-0: King concurred in result only without writing)

Practice Point – The Supreme Court’s short opinion had this to say about the colorable interest standard:

Other Orders

Toolpushers Supply Co. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue, 2021-CT-01186-SCT (granting cert)

Prather v. State, 2021-CT-01416-SCT (denying cert)

Prophet v. State, 2022-CT-00933-SCT (dismissing cert petition)

Jones v. The Mississippi Bar, 2022-BR-01256-SCT (granting petition for reinstatement)

Gibson v. McNatt, 2023-CA-00007-SCT (denying motion to take judicial notice, objections and/or responses to various filings, and motions to strike)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 29, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a case dealing with an attempt to collect early termination fees after a new board of supervisors terminated a service contract, a case dealing with a thorny procedural issue after a default judgment was entered on a counterclaim in an appeal from justice court, a domestic case regarding the parent’s school choice with potentially broader implications, and a criminal case addressing the weight of the evidence and improper testimony about prior convictions.

Broadband Voice, LLC v. Jefferson County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-01082-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a phone and internet company’s claim for early termination fees against the county after new slate of supervisors terminated the service contract, holding that under the plain language of the contract the fee was due on the termination date rather than the date of the notice of termination and that the early-termination-fee provision that was negotiated by the prior board was unenforceable against the subsequent board.
(9-0)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, and the county court for denying the landlord’s motion to set aside a default judgment in county court on the tenant’s counterclaim that she asserted on appeal from justice court, holding that the landlord was not in default for purposes of Rule 55 because the counterclaim was filed in violation of Rule 15(a) (re: amendment of pleadings) and Rule 13(k) (re: appeals from justice court) cannot be read to the exclusion of Rule 15(a).
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee; Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens.)

Practice Point – There is a lot of explanation of the various rules in play in this decision. Bookmark this one and re-read it whenever you handle and appeal from justice court.

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in ordering that the three minor children attend a specific public school district over the wishes of their father who was made the “final decision maker” on such matters, holding that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor use its powers “as superior guardian to make decisions that are in the best interest of children.”
(6-3: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell and Justice Griffis; Justice Maxwell wrote a separate dissent joined by Justice Coleman.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissents disagree on a big-picture issue: the relationship between the government’s role in the relationship between parents and children. Take a few minutes and read the majority and both dissents.

Moore v. State, 2021-KA-00420-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because inconsistencies in testimony did not render the verdict implausible and holding that although it was improper for the prosecution to directly elicit testimony about past convictions the error was potentially waived and ultimately harmless.
(6-3-0: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

In Re: Rules Governing Admission to The Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99012-SCT (reappointing Pieter Teeuwissen, Marcie Fyke Baria, and Gwendolyn Baptist-Rucker to three-year terms (11/1/22 through 10/31/25) as members of the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions)
Millette v. Frazier, 2022-M-00451-SCT (denying petition for permission to appeal and lifting stay of trial court proceedings)

Hand Down List