Rule 11 – Mississippi Appeals Blog

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today. There are two decisions involving sanctions and/or contempt rulings. There is also a noteworthy judicial estoppel decision. The others are an election contest, a felony conviction, and an MDOC decision.

Walker v. Taylor, 2025-EC-00658-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of sworn petitions for judicial review of a primary-election contest, holding that a new election was not warranted based on alleged voter disenfranchisement or equal protection violations.
(6-0: Griffis for the Court; Branning did not participate)

Favre v. MDHS, 2024-IA-00880-SCT (Civil – Other)
Vacating Rule 11 sanctions, holding that the sanctioned parties were entitled to due process including notice and an opportunity to respond.
(7-0: Coleman for the Court)

Gombako-Amos v. Amos, 2023-CT-01253-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancery court and the Court of Appeals on cert, holding that there was no clear and convincing evidence of willful and deliberate violation of a court order to support a finding of civil contempt, rendering judgment on attorneys’ fees, and remanding to determine issues related to reimbursement.
(6-1: Griffis for the Court; Randolph dissented)

Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc., 2024-CT-00455-SCT (civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing on judicial estoppel grounds on cert, holding that the Court of Appeals did not err by reviewing the judgment de novo instead of abuse of discretion and that the trial court erred by not applying Fifth Circuit precedent in its analysis of the second element (a court accepted a previous position) of judicial estoppel.
(5-2: Randolph for the Court; Coleman dissented, joined by Branning)

Practice Point – I view this as a must-cite decision for judicial estoppel going forward.

Winters v. State, 2024-KA-01105-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(7-0: Sullivan for the Court)

Hudson v. MDOC, 2025-CA -00645-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming MDOC’s decision to not award trusty time due to conviction for attempted murder, holding that MDOC did not violate section 47-5-138.1 and that the denial of trusty time did not increase her sentence.
(7-0: Randolph for the Court)

Other Orders

In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting motion seeking approval of revision to Local Rules for Fifth Chancery Court District)
Rules for Court Reporters, 89-R-99021-SCT (reappointing Hon. David P. Sullivan, Candace O’Barr Jones, Kati Vogt, and Latanya Allen as members of the Board of Certified Court Reporters for two-year terms from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028)
Brown v. State, 2017-DR-01373-SCT (denying rehearing)
Upchurch v. Lewis, 2023-CT-01296-SCT (granting cert)
Jack v. City of Meridian, 2023-CT-01339-SCT (dismissing cert petition as untimely)
McLaurin v. State, 2024-CT-00138-SCT (denying cert)
Jones v. Jones, 2024-CA-00690-SCT (denying rehearing)
UMMC v. Giddens, 2024-CT-00842-SCT (denying cert)
Favre v. MDHS, 2024-IA-00880-SCT (dismissing motion for permission to file exhibit under seal as moot)
Walker v. State, 2024-CT-01032-SCT (denying cert)
Bivins v. Ellisville State School, 2024-CT-01098-SCT (denying cert)
In Re: Jones, 2024-CA-01307-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Today’s court of appeals opinions involve a reputed patent troll, alienation of affection, and a bureaucratic nightmare.

International Association of Certified Home Inspectors and Nick Gromicko v. HomeSafe Inspection, Inc., 2020-CA-00520-COA (Civil – Contract/Misrepresentation/Damages Proof)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment on a jury verdict in a suit that included claims for breach of contract, conversion, and negligent misrepresentation filed by a patent ~~troll~~ holder against a trade association after a deal between the two went poorly. This story began when the patent holder filed a patent infringement suit against a member of the trade association, and the trade association sprang into action and made an effort to strike a deal with the patent holder. The parties reached a deal where patent holder would grant a bulk license to the trade association’s membership to use the patented technology and would agree not to sue any trade association member and, in exchange, the trade association would pay the patent holder a portion of the membership dues it collected. A contract was entered and the a dispute arose about how to carry out the contract that centered around how the license was presented on the trade association’s website. The patent holder filed suit and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the patent holder against the trade association and its founder. The court of appeals made three main holdings. First, the court of appeals held that the patent holder, which had been administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State at the time the contract was entered, had standing to sue because the former entity had been reinstated by the time the lawsuit was filed. Second, the court of appeals held that the patent holder did not prove compensatory damages for breach of contract and conversion with “reasonable certainty” because the damages model used at trial was prepared by unidentified individuals who did not use any recognized methodology and who did not testify at trial. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and remanded to the circuit court to determine nominal damages for the breach of contract and for conversion. Third, the court of appeals discussed the difference between a “misrepresentation of fact” and a “promise of future conduct” and held that the trade association’s “lofty promises” made during negotiations were not misrepresentations about then-existing facts and therefore reversed the judgment of liability on the negligent misrepresentation claim and entered judgment in favor of the trade association dismissing that claim.
(All participating judges concurred.)

Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (Civil – Torts/Alienation of Affection)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing ex-husband’s alienation of affection lawsuit, holding that there was a genuine dispute over material facts in the form of opposing affidavits and that the trial court had improperly considered the credibility and the weight of the evidence presented during the summary judgment proceedings. This case was remanded for further proceedings.
(All participating judges concurred.)

In the Interest of L.T., K.T., E.T., and S.T.: Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services v. Youth Court of Warren County, Mississippi, 2021-SA-00069-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Youth Court)
Reversing the youth court’s decision ordering CPS to pay attorney fees and travel expenses to a minors’ guardian under Rule 11, holding that Rule 11 cannot be used to award sanctions against a party that has not actually filed anything even when another party has endured a “bureaucratic nightmare.”
(All participating judges concurred.)

Other Decisions

Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development v. General Reinsurance Corporation, 2020-WC-761-COA (denying motion for rehearing).

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CA-883-COA (denying motion for rehearing, Barnes and Wilson would grant).

Complete Hand Down List

About

Mississippi Appeals Blog is written by Madison Taylor. I primarily post summaries of decisions from the Mississippi Supreme Court and the Mississippi Court of Appeals and some content on appellate and trial practice in Mississippi and legal miscellany. I am not affiliated with any court.

I am a shareholder at Wilkins Patterson where I have a litigation and workers’ comp practice and lead the firm’s appellate practice. I am licensed in Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina and admitted to the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits.

If I can assist you on an appeal or other legal matter please reach out. You can find my contact information on my firm page.

Some Representative Appeals I have handled:

Estate of Pace: Pace v. Phillips, No. 2025-CA-00223-COA (Miss. Ct. App. July 28, 2026). I represented the appellant and obtained a reversal of the chancellor’s decision canceling a probated claim.
Smith v. Dennis Wright & Son Plumbing, No. 2025-WC-00046-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026). I represented the appellee and secured the affirmance of a decision of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Unruh v. Johnson, 404 So. 3d 1166 (Miss. 2025). I represented the appellant on interlocutory appeal and won reversal and rendered judgment.
Am. Comp. Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 389 So. 3d 1060 (Miss. 2024). I represented the potential statutory-employer in a declaratory action filed by a subcontractor’s carrier who sought to void workers’ compensation coverage ab initio after a catastrophic injury. We won summary judgment in federal district court based on a novel theory that the common law remedy of voiding a policy ab initio for material misrepresentation was not available to workers’ compensation policies in Mississippi. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit certified that legal question to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered briefing and then held that our theory was correct. The Fifth Circuit took that holding and affirmed the district court’s judgment in our favor.
Joe McGee Constr. Co. v. Brown-Bowens, 368 So. 3d 1277 (Miss. 2023). I represented a road construction contractor in a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a one-car accident on a closed road. We persuaded the Mississippi Supreme Court to grant an interlocutory appeal and then to reverse the denial of summary judgment for our client.
Haynes v. Beckward, 358 So. 3d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). After a jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor in an auto-negligence action, I handled the appeal and won a remittitur based on insufficient expert testimony.
Estate of Ellis v. MMC Materials, Inc., 311 So. 3d 691 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). I represented the defendant company in a personal injury case. We won summary judgment at the trial court and then secured that victory with an affirmance on appeal.

Tag: Rule 11

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 4, 2026

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 1, 2022