The Mississippi Court of Appeals six opinions today. The court served up two direct criminal appeals, an easement by necessity case, a workers’ comp jurisdiction case, a MDES case, and a PCR case.
Ramsey v. State, 2022-CP-00103-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing it as successive. (9-0: Smith did not participate)
Hobby v. Ott, 2021-CA-01305-COA (Civil – Real Property) Reversing the chancellor’s order granting an easement by necessity, holding that the chancellor court erred in making this ruling without any supporting proof in the record regarding the costs of alternative routes of access, and rendering judgment denying the request. (10-0)
Chatman v. State, 2022-KA-00386-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. (10-0)
Pritchett v. MDES, 2022-CC-00808-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies) Affirming a finding that an employee was not entitled to benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the determination by MDES that the employee had voluntarily abandoned her job without finishing her assigned duties. (6-4-0: No separate opinions – Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result; Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only)
Boyington v. State, 2022-KA-00601-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming convictions of fleeing law enforcement and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the trial court committed error in admitting a photograph of a swastika tattoo on the defendant’s body but that it was harmless error. (7-3-0: No separate opinions – Wilson, Greenlee, and Smith concurred in part and in the result)
NOTE – Here is the Court’s summary of its analysis:
Wheeler v. Mississippi Limestone Corp., 2022-WC-00534-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp) Affirming the dismissal of a workers’ comp claim, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claimant was neither hired nor regularly employed in Mississippi and that the employer did not assume liability for the injury by maintaining insurance under the MWCA. (9-1-0: No separate opinions – McDonald concurred in the result only)
Other Orders
Clayton v. State, 2021-KA-00505-COA (denying rehearing)
Kirk v. Newton, 2021-CA-00684-COA (denying rehearing)
Smith v. State, 2021-KA-01003-COA (denying rehearing)
Dawson v. Burgs, 2021-CA-01038-COA (denying rehearing)
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)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 