Tag: Rule 81

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 9, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on Tuesday. Notably, not one of the decisions was a clean affirmance. There is a personal injury/MTCA decision, a riparian property damage case, a divorce decision, and an arbitration decision.

Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services v. Butler, 2022-CA-00176-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal in an MTCA car wreck case, holding that the circuit court did err after holding a bench trial and finding that the defendant-driver was in the course and scope of her employment and her negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, but holding that the circuit court erred in not awarding damages for the loss of a cell phone and repair of a wedding band and that the circuit court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for additur on the loss-of-consortium claim.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Hegman v. Adcock, 2022-CA-00501-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment affirming the county court in a riparian rights case, holding that the circuit court did not err in affirming the denial of the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and damages and the denial of the defendant’s Rule 52 motion, but reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the court court’s finding the plaintiff liable on a tortious interference with business relations counterclaim and the $95,000 award on that counterclaim.
(8-2-0: Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Bolivar v. Bolivar, 2022-CA-00640-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Vacating the chancery court’s judgment on a motion for contempt in “highly contentious divorce proceedings,” holding that the movant was required to have a new Rule 81 summons for her fourth contempt motion “regardless of the status of the litigation.”
(10-0)

Coleman v. Stan King Chevrolet, Inc., 2022-CA-00943-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on the underlying claims, holding that where the defendants initially sought to compel arbitration but later obtained a default judgment on their counterclaim in the circuit court, the defendants’ rejection of the plaintiff’s attempt to proceed with arbitration justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6), holding that the circuit court erred in addressing the statute of limitations issue, and remanded for the matter to be restored to the active docket and stayed pending conclusion of arbitration proceedings.
(5-3-2: Lawrence and Smith concurred in part and in the result without writing; McCarty concurred in result only without writing; Greenlee dissented, joined by Enfinger)

NOTE – The proceedings in the circuit court were convoluted. It necessary to read the opinion to get a handle on what took place and the Court’s ruling.

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2021-CA-01182-COA (denying rehearing)

Carpenter v. State, 2022-KA-00398-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2022-KA-00573-COA (denying rehearing)

Boyington v. State, 2022-KA-00601-COA (denying rehearing)

Pickle v. State, 2022-CP-00929-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 12, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight decisions on Tuesday that cover a lot of territory. There is something for just about everybody.

Read on down for a case that underscores the importance of keeping up with the weekly hand downs from the Mississippi Supreme Court and Mississippi Court of Appeals. (Subscribing to this blog probably doesn’t hurt you in that endeavor.)

Coogan v. Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2022-CA-01063-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming partial summary judgment in policy holders’ suit against their auto liability carrier, holding that the carrier had an arguably reasonable basis to support its claims handling the circuit court did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the bad faith punitive damages claim or the Veasley damages claim.
(6-2-1: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing, Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing, McDonald dissented without writing, Lawrence did not participate)

Forrest v. State, 2022-KA-00844-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the court did not admit inadmissible hearsay or irrelevant evidence, and dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice.
(10-0)

Hills v. Manns, 2022-CA-00774-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming modification of visitation schedule, holding that the chancellor did not err in not dismissing the mother’s petition on the basis of res judicata, not awarding him attorney’s fees, or in awarding the mother final decision-making authority.
(10-0)

Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc., 2022-CA-01240-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit on judicial estoppel grounds, holding that the case should be remanded to allow the circuit court to apply the test from a recent Mississippi Supreme Court decision that was handed down after the circuit court’s ruling.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case illustrates the importance of keeping up with decisions handed down weekly by Mississippi’s appellate courts. (By extension, this case illustrates why you and all of your friends should subscribe to the Mississippi Appeals Blog – I covered the Saunders decision here when it was handed down.)

PRACTICE POINT (continued): Though the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Saunders was handed down after the summary judgment order was entered, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, infra, with its special concurrence, was handed down before the summary judgment proceedings. So the precedential special concurrence in Jones that controlled this case was in force during the summary judgment proceedings. This case serves as a good reminder that special concurrences that garner a majority of the court have the force of precedent. (Another shameless plug: I covered the Jones decision here when it was handed down and specifically discussed the precedential value of the special concurrence.)

Barefield v. Barefield, 2022-CA-00834-COA (Civil – Torts-Other)
Affirming the chancellor’s order requiring the former member/owner of an investment company to pay a forensic accountant’s fee for services during litigation among all members/owners, holding that the exert was court-appointed and the chancellor had discretion to order the party whose actions necessitated the lawsuit to pay the fees.
(8-2-0: McCarty concurred in part and in result without writing; Wilson concurred in result only without writing)

Henderson v. State, 2022-KA-00661-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Nichols v. State, 2022-KA-00202-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of first-degree murder and remanding for new trial, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the “castle doctrine,” while also holding that the evidence to support the conviction was legally sufficient so the remedy was a new trial.
(10-0)

Miss. Dept. of Human Servs. v. Johnson, 2022-SA-00605-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision voiding a 2002 paternity and child-support order was void for insufficient service of process, holding that in light of MDHS’s admission that failed to effect proper service under Rule 81(d) MDHS’s arguments under the doctrine of laches, judicial estoppel, unjust enrichment, and public policy failed.
(6-4: Greenlee dissented, joined by Wilson, Lawrence, and Emfinger)

Other Orders

Gillen v. Gillen, 2021-CA-00837-COA (granting motion for appellate attorneys’ fees)

Moore v. State, 2022-KA-00327-COA (granting appearance as counsel, but denying motion to substitute and motion to file supplemental brief)

Diming v. State, 2022-KA-00412-COA (recalling mandate and granting motion for time to file motion for rehearing)

Russell v. State, 2022-KA-00447-COA (recalling mandate and granting motion for time to file motion for rehearing)

Greater Hamilton Grove Baptist Church v. Hamilton Grove Missionary Baptist Church, 2022-CA-00518-COA (denying rehearing)

Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. v. Williams, 2023-WC-00453-COA (denying motion for reconsideration)

Mitchell v. State, 2023-TS-00764-COA (granting motion to proceed out-of-time)

Robinson v. State, 2023-TS-00935-COA (dismissing untimely appeal)

Britton v. State, 2023-TS-01060-COA (dismissing untimely appeal)

Rutherford v. State, 2023-TS-01066-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)

Rutherford v. State, 2023-TS-01069-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)

Hand Down Page