Tag: Rule 54(b)

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 13 and May 20, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions last week and a hearty eleven today. There are some interesting cases in the mix and a summary of each is below.

May 13, 2025

May v. May, 2023-CA-01022-COA, consolidated with 2023-M-01401-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Vacating the chancellor’s order of contempt for failure to pay child support but affirming his denial of the motion to recuse, holding that the chancery court did not have personal jurisdiction for purposes of a contempt ruling for want of service under Rule 81, but that although the chancellor erred in finding that the motion for recusal was untimely it was nevertheless within his discretion to deny it.
(9-1-0: Lawrence concurred in result only without writing)

Fortner v. IMS Engineers, Inc., 2023-CA-01170-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a company that had been engaged to oversee and manage road improvement projects until about ten months before a fatal accident occurred, holding that there was no evidence that the company owed a duty of care once its involvement ended and the City took over the management role.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; Carlton did not participate)

Horne v. Dolgencorp LLC, 2024-CA-00376-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a trip-and-fall case after a customer tripped on merchandise in an aisle, holding that there was no evidence that the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the dangerous condition.
(8-2: Westbrooks and McDonald dissented without writing)

Shipley v. Shipley, 2023-CA-00814-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming judgment modifying the custody arrangement by giving the mother sole physical and legal custody, holding that the chancellor did not err in modifying physical and legal custody based the mother’s relocation to Oregon, that the chancellor’s did not err by failing to consider the totality of the circumstances, that the chancellor did not give undue weight to one Albright factor, and that the argument that the chancellor erred by not sua sponte appointing a GAL to investigate allegations of abuse was procedurally barred, and declining to address child support in after ruling that the chancellor did not err in its custody decision.
(7-3: Wilson dissented, joined by Carlton and Emfinger)

Magyar v. Shiers, 2023-CA-00682-COA (Torts – Other)
Affirming bench trial decision finding the defendant liable for malicious prosecution and awarding compensatory and punitive damages, holding that there was evidence to support each element of malicious prosecution where the defendant had filed charging affidavits against the plaintiffs alleging that they were intentionally damaging his property by allowing sewage from a leaking septic system to run into his property but the justice court dismissed the charges for lack of evidence.
(10-0)

Mueller Industries, Inc. v. Waits, 2023-WC-00494-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Reversing the Commission’s decision ordering a lump sum payment, holding that the information in the record did not permit the Court to review the Commission’s computations of TPD and remanding for the Commission to determine whether TPD was properly calculated and credited, determine whether the claimant received more than the maximum weekly benefit and whether the Employer/Carrier should receive a credit for overpayment, and ensure that the Employer/Carrier was not charged with penalties or interest after the date the Commission found that no further benefits were owed.
(8-2: Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald and joined in part by McCarty)

Other Orders

  • Mount v. State, 2023-KA-00807-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Begnaud v. Begnaud, 2023-CA-00822-COA (denying rehearing)
  • In the Matter of Estate of Tate: Garfield v. Tate, 2023-CA-01262-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

May 20, 2025

Mask v. Baggett, 2024-CA-00181-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions denying a motion for contempt and attorney’s fees in a divorce action for lack of proof, holding that the chancellor’s finding that neither party had sufficient proof to support motions for contempt and attorney’s fees was supported by the record and lack of record, that the appellant failed to show that the chancellor abused his discretion by denying the Rule 59 motion due to clear error or manifest injustice.
(10-0)

Bickes v. Swain, 2024-CA-00187-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the mother of the bride and the venue in a premises liability suit filed by a wedding guest who hurt his leg stepping off a porch at the venue, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment without conducting a hearing that had been set and that summary judgment was proper because there was no evidence of a dangerous condition that could support liability regardless of whether the plaintiff was classified as a licensee or an invitee.
(7-1-1: Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Weddle did not participate)

Page v. State, 2024-CP-00613-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s motion for discovery in the circuit court in which he was convicted of attacking a woman with a knife two decades ago, holding that the circuit court did not err in rejecting the claim as a standalone claim separate from a PCR petition though the circuit court incorrectly “denied” the motion instead of “dismissing” the motion for lack of personal jurisdiction.
(10-0)

Jones v. State, 2023-KA-01157-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of armed robbery, holding that the circuit court did not commit plain error in excluding evidence of a witness’s prior convictions because the weight of evidence of guilt was overwhelming, that the Miranda violation arguments were procedurally barred and did not merit reversal under the plain error doctrine.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Pickett v. State, 2024-KA-00511-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit a larceny, holding that the issue of the circuit court’s denial of the motions for directed verdict was procedurally barred and lacked merit because the evidence was sufficient and the verdict not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the circuit court did not err in denying the motions without making specific findings of fact.
(10-0)

Mortera v. Kona Villa Owners Association, Inc., 2023-CA-01297-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Reversing summary judgment that was entered in favor of an HOA that declined to pursue a property damage claim on behalf of a condo unit owner, holding that based on the bylaws and insurance policy terms there was a genuine fact dispute over the HOA’s status of a fiduciary.
(9-0)

Parrott v. Frierson, 2023-SA-01245-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s dismissal of taxpayers’ petition appealing the Board of Tax Appeals’ order, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that “yard sales” where the taxpayers purchased storage units and sold the contents were not isolated, casual, or occasional sales but sales made in the course of business and subject to sales tax, that the chancellor did not err in finding that the MDOR’s income tax assessment was prima facie correct, that the taxpayers did not overcome the presumption of correctness, and that the chancellor properly affirmed assessment of penalties and interest.
(10-0)

Forrest County General Hospital v. Knight, 2023-WC-01277-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the Commission’s order that affirmed the AJ’s order that the claimant suffered an 80% industrial loss of use of the right leg and reducing it to 60% due to apportionment but reversed the AJ’s finding of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarded 15% LWEC for the low back injury, holding that under the deferential standard of review there was evidence to support the Commission’s decision.
(10-0)

Roach v. Roach, 2024-CA-00236-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of the ex-wife’s Rule 60(b) motion after the ex-husband was granted a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhumane treatment, holding that the chancery court did not err in finding that service of process by certified mail was proper and that the ex-wife failed to show exceptional circumstances related to her claim that her prior attorney was ineffective warranting relief under Rule 60(b).
(10-0)

Allen & Smith Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Merrill, 2023-CA-00468-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment granted in favor of a former employee in a breach of contract claim alleging violations of a non-compete agreement, holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction even though the judgment did not include the language “no just reason for delay” and that the circuit court did not err in finding certain provisions ambiguous and striking them from the agreement.
(5-5: Carlton and Emfinger concurred in part and dissented in part; Wilson dissented, joined by Barnes, and McCarty and joined in party by Carlton and Emfinger)

NOTE – I hope this one goes up on cert. My impression is that the holding of the principal opinion would relax the Rule 54(b) standard as it has been enforced. In the meantime, I would not stop putting all of the Rule 54(b) magic language in your judgments.

Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc., 2024-CA-00455-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on judicial estoppel after the plaintiff failed to disclose this personal injury claim in her bankruptcy proceedings, holding that the “acceptance” element of judicial estoppel was not met where the bankruptcy as dismissed without a discharge.
(8-2: Emfinger dissented, joined by Wilson)

Other Orders

  • Culbertson v. State, 2023-KA-00588-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Boone v. State, 2023-KA-00684-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Gibson v. State, 2023-KA-00704-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Grimes v. State, 2023-KA-01254-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Burnette v. State, 2023-CP-01330-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 13, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. The court affirmed in two direct criminal appeals but reversed, dismissed, or vacated in each of the remaining cases. Those four consist of a divorce, a real property conveyance, a mechanic lien against real property, and a misdemeanor.

Osing v. Osing, 2022-CA-00755-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying the husband’s motion to withdraw consent to the irreconcilable-differences divorce, but reversing the chancellor’s division of the marital estate for failure to make sufficient factual findings and, as a result, reversed the chancellor’s award of alimony and a minor child’s college and health-insurance coverage pending reconsideration of the division of the marital estate.
(7-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate)

Campbell v. State, 2022-KA-01055-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err by referencing the grand jury proceedings, that there was no Brady violation regarding lost fingerprints, and that the trial court did not err in overruling a Batson challenge.
(8-0: Smith did not participate)

Alexander v. Espinoza, 2023-CP-01139-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Dismissing the appeal of a chancellor’s order denying declaratory relief, holding that the chancellor’s order was not a final judgment because it did not resolve all claims against all parties, and it did not contain 54(b) certification language.
(9-0)

In the Matter of the Estate of Johnson: Manners v. Estate of Johnson, 2023-CA-00823-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision denying a claim to enforce rights under a document by which a decedent had intended to convey an interest in real property, holding that the document was a valid conveyance of an interest in the property and remanded for necessary parties to be joined and for further proceedings consistent with the opinions.
(9-0)

Carpenter v. State, 2023-KA-00580-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of child exploitation, holding that section 97-5-33(8) of Mississippi’s child exploitation statute is not unconstitutional for overbreadth or for supporting entrapment and holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
(9-0)

NOTE – Here is the court’s description of section Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(8):

Holt v. State, 2023-KM-00121-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Vacating and remanding dismissal of an appeal to the circuit court from a conviction of simple domestic assault originating in municipal court, holding that the circuit court erred by dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief without giving notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to cure and that the record was insufficient to determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction for want of posting a cost bond.
(7-1-0: Carlton concurred in result only without writing; Smith did not participate)

  • Bradford v. State, 2022-KA-00493-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Hutson v. Hutson, 2022-CT-00569-COA (dismissing motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
  • Taylor v. Johnson, 2022-CA-00734-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Brown v. Black, 2022-CA-00869-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Winstead v. State, 2022-KA-01235-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Smith v. State, 2023-KA-00185-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Magyar v. Shiers, 2023-CA-00682-COA (denying motion to dismiss appeal)
  • Brown v. State, 2024-TS-00741-COA (granting motion to proceed out of time)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of July 18, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. There are two direct criminal appeals (one of which resulted in reversal) and one convoluted civil case stemming from business dealings related to a mixed-use development.

Jones v. State, 2022-KA-01173-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of murder, holding that the defendant was not denied a fair and impartial trial by the State’s reference to other bad acts in its opening statement and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

Walker v. State, 2023-KA-00467-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of knowlingly possessing methamphetamine with a firearm enhancement, holding that the State failed to present sufficient, competent evidence connecting the defendant to the meth to establish constructive possession where there was another passenger in the vehicle the defendant was driving and the meth was found between the driver’s seat and the center console.
(8-1: Randolph dissented)

NOTE – Here is some of the key rationale:

Landrum v. Livingston Holdings, LLC, 2022-CA-00498-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on direct and cross-appeal in a dispute arising out of business agreements related to a mixed-use development, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that one litigant did not have derivative standing on behalf of an LLC; that the chancellor did not err in denying a Rule 52(a) request for findings of fact and conclusions of law; that the chancellor did not err in denying a Rule 54(b) motion for final judgment; that the chancellor erred in finding no fiduciary duty existed between to entities but did not err in such a find as to others; that several issues were waived for failure to cite authority in briefing; that the chancellor did not err in excluding expert testimony; that the chancellor erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim; and that the chancellor erred in denying attorneys’ fees.
(6-3: King concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Kitchens; Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Kitchens and King)

NOTE – The majority opinion is 44 pages that include many convoluted underlying facts that I have not attempted to convey here.

Other Orders

  • In Re: The Mississippi Access to Justice Commission, 89-R-99032-SCT (reappointing Hon. Tiffany Grove, David Haadsma, and Julian Miller as Commissioners of the Access to Justice Commission to terms expiring June 30, 2027, and appointing Michael Carr, Hon. Joseph Kilgore, and Barrett Blake Teller as Commissioners to terms expiring June 30, 2027, to succeed Michelle Clouse, Hon. Trent Favre, and Stephen Johnson.)
  • Ronk v. State, 2021-DR-00269-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • Riordan v. Estate of Haguewood, 2022-CT-00606-SCT (denying cert)
  • Ratcliff v. State, 2022-CT-00690-SCT (granting cert)
  • Scates v. State, 2022-CT-00856 (denying cert)
  • Premier Radiology, P.A. v. Davis, 2022-IA-00916-SCT (denying reconsideration and reinstatement)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 15, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions from very different areas of law without a single dissent today. The first is a criminal case challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The second deals with the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a election contest. The third is a divorce appeal dashed on the rocks of 54(b).

Burden v. State, 2021-KA-00782-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and denial of the defendant’s motion for new trial, holding that the evidence including testimony, medical records, and photographs was sufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

Holliday v. Devaull, 2021-EC-00486-SCT (Election Contest)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision ordering a special election, holding that the circuit court lack subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to file a sworn copy of his complaint to the Aberdeen Municipal Democratic Executive Committee within the 10-day statutory period and that the second amended petition did not relate back to the original petition.
(9-0)

Williams v. Williams, 2021-CA-00875-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Dismissing the appeal, holding that an order granting husband’s motion to enforce the divorce agreement and entering what was called a “final judgment” incorporating the divorce agreement was not a final, appealable judgment because the court had not resolved the wife’s complaint for divorce and the grounds for divorce.
(8-1-0)

Practice Point – Our remorseless foe Rule 54(b) strike again. If anything is left to be decided, be sure the judgment you want to appeal contains the magic language of a Rule 54(b) final judgment.

Other Orders

Miles v. State, 2019-CT-00895-SCT (rehearing denied)
Mingo v. McComb School District, 2020-CT-00022-SCT (denying cert)
Simmons v. Town of Goodman, Mississippi, 2021-EC-00563-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 4, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today and in both it reversed the Court of Appeals. One involves a judgment lienholder’s plight after a tax sale of which it was not given notice. The other is an appellate procedure case addressing whether there was a final, appealable order.

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in suit to conform and quiet title, holding that in this case where a home builder obtained and enrolled a judgment against the property owners for an unpaid construction balance, the property was sold at a tax sale and then sold again, that no legal authority required notice of the tax sale to the home builder/judgment lienholder prior to the expiration of the two-year redemption period and that the chancery clerk had no duty to conduct a search of the judgment roll. Judgment was rendered in favor of the purchaser.
(6-0: Chief Justice Randolph, Justice Beam, and Justice Griffis did not participate)

OVERRULE ALERT – This decision overruled at least two prior decisions where it was held that equity allowed for an extension of the two-year, statutory redemption period because such decisions run afoul of the Mississippi Constitution which gives the Legislature the exclusive right to set the conditions for redemption:

Humphrey v. Holts, 2021-CT-00046-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the chancery court’s order dismissing the complaint upon the motion of one of two defendants left no claims to be adjudicated and it was therefore a final, appealable judgment.
(9-0: Justice King specially concurred, joined by Justice Kitchens)

PRACTICE POINT – Mississippi’s appellate courts dismiss a significant number of appeals for lack of final, appealable judgment by strictly applying Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This opinion does not reference Rule 54(b) but it appears that the chancellor’s order in this case did not contain the magic words in 54(b). The Supreme Court essentially held that 54(b) did not apply here because the chancellor’s order disposed of the entire complaint (i.e. it did not dispute of fewer than all claims/parties) so the magic words were not required. My takeaway: When Rule 54(b) applies it must be strictly complied with, but don’t assume it applies.

In Re: Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 89-R-99011-SCT (Order appointing Helen Morris, Marcus A. McLelland, and Katherine K. Farese to three-year terms as members of the Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education effective August 1, 2022)

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (Order authorizing and directing the disbursement of $15,000.00 from the Court’s Judicial System Operation Fund to the Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for its necessary work through September 30, 2022)

City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (denying rehearing)

Nelson v. State, 2020-M-01417 (denying application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court filed pro se and warning petitioner against further frivolous filings)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2022-AD-00001-SCT (En banc order directing the disbursement of $177,295.27 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 24, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. Today’s offerings include a divorce case, a DUI/marijuana case, a personal injury case, a malicious mischief case, a jurisdiction case with Rule 54(b) claiming more victims, and a handful of PCR cases.

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the circuit court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
(All judges concurred.)

Powell v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 2021-CA-00055-COA (Civil – Real Property/Appellate Jurisdiction/Rule 54(b))
Dismissing appeal of the chancery court’s order dismissing the debtor’s complaint with prejudice and granting the lender’s counterclaim seeking to proceed with a judicial foreclosure, holding that (1) because the counterclaim for judicial foreclosure was still pending the chancery court’s order did not adjudicate all claims against all parties and (2) the chancery court’s order did not contain the certification required by Rule 54(b).
(All judges concurred.)

Klis v. State, 2021-CA-00349-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the motion was time-barred and that his ineffective-assistance of counsel claim did not provide an exception to the bar.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (Criminal – Felony/Jury Instructions)
Affirming conviction of malicious mischief, holding that a jury instruction setting forth the elements of malicious mischief did not constructively amend the indictment because the record failed to show the alleged variance and, in light of the lack of objection by the defendant at trial, there was no plain error by the circuit judge.
(All judges concurred.)

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2020-CP-01135-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Habitual Cruel and Inhuman Treatment)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment of divorce and final judgment regarding division of property and other financial matters, holding that the chancery court did not err in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment which included throwing items, death threats, and behavior that caused the wife’s family to try to get her to seek medical or psychiatric help. Regarding division of property, the Court of Appeals held that the chancery court did not err in dividing the property as the parties had agreed to. The Court of Appeals handled this case graciously, but appropriately noted that the pro se appellant had “waived consideration of the issues she raises on appeal.”
(All judges concurred.)

NOTE – Hiring an attorney to handle your appeal is generally a good idea. Relatedly, if you can’t find one to take your case, it might be a sign. The appellant in this case represented herself and it did not go well. For example:

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that it had no jurisdiction.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff failed to show that he had a procedurally-viable claim or an applicable exception to the procedural bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Borsi v. State, 2021-KM-00643-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor/DUI/Marijuana)
Affirming a conviction of DUI of marijuana, holding that the roadblock that led to the defendant’s arrest was for a proper purpose and conducted consistent with MHP’s general practice so there was no Fourth Amendment violation, that the defendant was not under custodial interrogation when he admitted to smoking marijuana so there was no Miranda violation, that the law was properly applied based upon “influence” rather than “impairment,” and that the trial court (in a bench trial) properly relied upon witness testimony and the evidence presented at trial. The defendant did not leave empty-handed, as the Court of Appeals reversed the assessment of an $85.00 transfer fee by the circuit clerk.
(Chief JUdge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – This is the second opinion in the last few weeks where the defendant argued that he might have partaken of marijuana, but he was not impaired by it. And it is the second opinion where the Court of Appeals has held that “influence” is not synonymous with “impairment” in this context. (The other opinion was Briggs v. State summarized here.)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CA-00214-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Jury Instructions)
Affirming a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff was helping the defendant put up a barbed wire fence and a bungee cord snapped and struck the plaintiff in the eye, holding that (1) a rational jury could have found that there was no master-servant relationship or that the tools provided were reasonably safe and that the defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) the jury was fairly instructed on the issue of proximate causation, (3) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by giving the defendant’s instruction on “simple tools,” (4) submitting four verdict forms was not reversible error, and (5) the fact that defendant offered fifteen instructions did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff.
(All judges concurred.)

Practice Point – Fight jury instructions with jury instructions. If you don’t like something about opposing counsel’s jury instructions, propose one that fixes it:

Other Orders

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-00299-COA (denying rehearing)
Denham v. Denham, 2020-CA-00675-COA (denying rehearing)
Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (denying rehearing)
Miller v. State, 2021-TS-01412-COA (denying motion to reinstate appeal)
Nelson v. State, 2022-TS-00413-COA (denying appellant’s motion to stay appeal and dismissing appeal without prejudice for lack of final judgment

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 29, 2022

The Court of Appeals handed down one opinion today that is part MTCA decision on the open and obvious defense and part cautionary tale about the hazards of, and interplay among, Rules 54(b), 59(b), and 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Since I just had one opinion to wrestle with today I took a deeper dive into the timeline and the motions filed at the trial court level.

McGee v. Neel Schaffer Engineers and Planners Inc., 2020-CA-01277-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming in part the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment as to some defendants and dismissing the appeal as to the other defendants. The plaintiff’s decedent died of electrocution while moving a water pump on a State-aid culvert reinforcement project due a conflict with a utility line. The plaintiff filed suit against Pike County, Toles (the County’s State-aid engineer), Neel Schaffer (the engineer’s employer), and others not relevant to this appeal. The timeline is key to unpacking this opinion:

  • July 27, 2018: Summary judgment granted to Neel Schaffer’s because Toles was acting as a county employee and immune under the MTCA and that as a corollary Neel Schaffer, as Toles’s employer, was entitled to MTCA immunity. Final judgment entered as to the claims against Neel Schaffer using the magic words of Rule 54(b) (i.e. “final judgment” and “no just reason for delay”).
  • August 1, 2019: Summary judgment granted in favor of Toles on the claims against him in his individual capacity because it had previously determined Toles was entitled to MTCA immunity. Final judgment entered as to these claims.
  • June 18, 2020: The plaintiff filed a “motion to reconsider” the July 27, 2018, and August 1, 2019, summary judgments.
  • September 21, 2020: Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was properly treated as a Rule 60(b) motion rather than a Rule 59(b) motion because it was filed more than ten days after the judgments had been entered, found to be untimely and meritless under Rule 60(b), and therefore denied.
  • October 28, 2020: Summary judgment granted as to the claims against Pike County and Toles in his official capacity, finding that they were entitled to immunity under the MTCA.
  • November 17, 2020: The plaintiff appealed from the summary judgments of July 27, 2018; August 1, 2019; and October 28, 2020, but not the September 21, 2020 denial of the motion to reconsider.
  • November 24, 2020: Neel Schaffer and Toles in his individual capacity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
  • November 25, 2020: The circuit court entered a final judgment as to the claims against Pike County and Toles in his official capacity.
  • December 4, 2020: Plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal, again appealing only the summary judgments.
  • December 8, 2020: Neel Schaffer and Toles filed a second joint motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

The Court of Appeals first addressed the July 27, 2018, and the August 1, 2019, final judgments, and held that because the plaintiff did not file a motion to reconsider within ten days of either judgment or a notice of appeal within thirty days of either judgment, the plaintiff’s appeal of those judgments was untimely.

The Court of Appeals then addressed the dismissal of the claims against Pike County and Toles, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the dangerous condition was open and obvious, was not created by the government’s negligent maintenance or repair and it, and was not caused by Toles. The Court noted that the issue of whether a danger is open and obvious is usually a question for the trier of fact, but that there are cases where conditions are so clearly dangerous that the issue can be decided as a matter of law. The Court also held that neither Pike County nor Toles could be liable for causing a dangerous condition created by a third-party without notice and sufficient time to correct the dangerous condition:

(All judges concurred)

PRACTICE POINT: If you win summary judgment as to fewer than all claims/parties, request a 54(b) final judgment like the defendants did here. If the other side wins summary judgment as to fewer than all claims/parties, beware of a 54(b) final judgment that starts your appeal shot clock.

Other Orders

Wilson v. State, 2020-CP-00762-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Hardin v. Hardin, 2020-CA-1314-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
Jiles v. State, 2021-CP-34-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List