Tag: Service of Process

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of March 13, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court waited until I was out of town last week to unleash its largest batch of opinions of the year. Six opinions were handed down on Thursday, including one of my cases which was on interlocutory appeal for a service of process issue. There is also one direct criminal appeal, two breach of contract cases (one trial and one summary judgment), an election contest, and a statute of limitations case.

The Court also adopted a new rule of evidence that is “residual exception” to the rule against hearsay.

Unruh v. Johnson, 2024-IA-00028-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process, holding that the trial court erred by granting the plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time to serve process because the plaintiff could not show “good cause” where both the motion for enlargement of time and the first service attempt came one day after the 120-day service period ended and the plaintiff failed to articulate a legitimate basis for failing to attempt to timely serve process, holding that filing the motion for enlargement of time one day after the 120-day period did not toll the statute of limitations, and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant.
(9-0)

Note – I represented the appellant/defendant in this appeal. I jumped in on this one with Bobby Stephenson when I joined Wilkins Patterson last summer right after interlocutory appeal was granted.

Phillips v. State, 2023-KA-01218-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the admission of statements on body-camera footage were not testimonial and statements in search warrant affidavit did not violate the Confrontation Clause, that introducing underlying facts and circumstances of the search warrant containing a comment about the defendant’s post-Miranda silence was error albeit harmless, that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply, and that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.
(8-0: Randolph did not participate)

Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc., 2023-CA-00376-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming judgment against the defendant for outstanding principal and interest under an accounts receivable line of credit agreement and award of attorneys’ fees, holding that the trial court did not err by granting a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing affirmative defenses, that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment are not reviewable on appeal after they proceeded to trial and litigated, that the trial court did not err by granting a motion to admit parol evidence, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants’ motions for directed verdict and granting the plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict, that the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s jury instruction on liability, that the trial court did not err by denying the defendants’ post-trial motions, and that the trial court did not err in altering the judgment due to the jury’s disregard of the peremptory instruction and directed verdict, and that the trial court did not err by granting the plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and award attorneys’ fees.
(6-6*-2: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by five other justices, making it binding precedent; Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Coleman)

*Precedential Special Concurrence – With a total of six votes, Maxwell’s special concurrence is precedent and provides significant guidance for the bench and bar going forward, so it deserves its own summary. The special concurrence held that the trial court erred in granting a blanket ruling against all of the defendants’ affirmative defenses, specifically holding that Horton does not apply to “all” affirmative defenses, only those that would have terminated litigation if asserted earlier.

The concurrence explained:

Footnote 11 was also noteworthy:

Final Note – The dissent argued for limiting the Horton doctrine to the issue of asserting the right to arbitration.

Housing Authority of the City of Yazoo City, Mississippi v. Billings, 2023-IA-00975-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the trial court’s order denying the Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment on a breach of contract claim against it, holding that none of the alleged terms of the employment contract were contained in the Housing Authority board’s minutes, and rendering judgment in favor of the Housing Authority.
(9-0)

Gavin v. Evers, 2024-EC-00061-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in an election contest, holding that the trial court did not err in considering the motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment simultaneously, did not err in excluding an affidavit that was not based on the affiant’s personal knowledge, did not err in finding no genuine issue of material fact in the voting irregularities claim, did not err by finding that the prevailing candidate met the two-year residency requirement, and did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration and request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(9-0)

Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs, 2023-IA-00617-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the county court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the trial court erred in finding the three-year statute of limitations applied where the complaint stated only a claim of defamation which is subject to a one-year statute of limitations.
(5-4)

Other Orders

  • Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-00665-SCT (denying cert)
  • Law Will and Testament of Prichard: Martin v. Arceneaux, 2022-CT-01035-SCT (denying cert)
  • Wilson v. State, 2023-CT-00070-SCT (dismissing pro se cert petition as untimely)
  • Wallace v. State, 2023-CT-00071-SCT (denying cert)
  • NCAA v. Farrar, 2023-IA-00282-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • In Re: Capitol Complex Improvement District Inferior Court, 2025-M-00007-SCT (granting motion to withdraw petition to adopt local rules of CCID Court)
  • In Re: Mississippi Rules of Evidence, 89-R-99002-SCT (granting motion to adopt Mississippi Rule of Evidence 807) Here is the text of the new rule:

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 27, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. One addresses a service-of-process issue in a med mal case and the other two are direct criminal appeals. Once of the criminal cases reversed under the cumulative-error doctrine.

Webster v. University of Mississippi Medical Center Grenada, 2023-CA-00687-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming the trial court’s order of dismissal for failure to serve process, holding that Rule 4(d)(5) applied, not Rule 4(d)(8), so UMMC had to be served by service on the attorney general which was not done within the time allowed under Rule 4(h).
(9-0)

Minor v. State, 2022-CT-00990-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing convictions of possession of marijuana and trafficking of THC, holding that cumulative-error doctrine applied where the State commented on the defendant’s right to remain silent, elicited inflammatory testimony regarding the effect of edible son children without evidentiary basis, referring to an out-of-court statement made by someone the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross examine, and improperly implied the defendant must be guilty because another defendant was guilty because these errors undermined the fairness of the defendant’s trial.
(4-3: Griffis dissented, joined by Maxwell and Branning; Randolph and Sullivan did not participate)

Jones v. State, 2023-KA-00876-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and fondling, holding that the defendant did not show that trial counsel’s failure to file post-trial motions prejudiced his defense.
(7-2: King dissented, joined by Griffis)

Other Orders

  • Gilmer v. Biegel, 2022-CT-00528-SCT (denying motion for citation of contempt and sanctions as moot)
  • Nettles v. Nettles, 2023-CT-00041-SCT (dismissing cert)
  • Brown v. State, 2023-CT-00082-SCT (denying cert)
  • Aldridge v. South Tippah County School District, 2023-CT-00418-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 3, 2024 and September 10, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions last week and three opinions this week. Since I was out of the office last Tuesday I included last week’s cases in this post. Between the two dates there there are a couple of service-of-process cases, a few personal injury cases, a couple of domestic relations cases, direct criminal appeals, and a two PCR cases. Appellants prevailed in all three of today’s cases.

September 3, 2024

Havard v. Hart, 2023-CA-00260-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal for insufficient service of process, holding that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the defendant had not been properly served and that the plaintiff did not have good cause for failing to timely serve process.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Old Hattiesburg High, L.P. v. Harris Construction Services, LLC, 2023-CA-00579-COA (Civil – Other)
Dismissing appeal of order denying a motion to reinstate an order obtaining expunging a contractor’s lien, holding that the initial order expunging the lien was not a final appealable order and that subsequent orders on motions revising the interim order were not final either.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Hyland v. State, 2023-CA-00256-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of PCR motion challenging his convictions and seeking an out-of-time appeal, holding that motion was time-barred and successive.
(9-0)

Fortner v. Bratcher, 2023-CP-00664-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings related to motions for contempt and custody modification, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion finding the father in contempt, carrying forward the parties’ agreed visitation schedule, or enjoining the parties from contacting CPS with allegations of neglect or abuse without first contacting local law enforcement.
(9-0)

Miller v. State, 2023-CP-00812-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that it was barred by the UPCCRA’s statute of limitations.
(9-0)

Wilkerson v. Allred, 2023-CA-00393-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing claims for emotional distress damage after the defendant shot and killed the plaintiff’s puppy in the head as it sat next to the plaintiff’s twelve-year-old sister, holding that there was a jury question on the issue of whether the plaintiff’s emotional distress injuries were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
(4-3-2: Wilson and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks concurred in the result only without writing; Carlson dissented, joined by Emfinger and joined in part by McDonald.)

September 10, 2024

Bell v. State, 2023-CA-00951-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Vacating and remanding revocation of a suspended sentence, holding that the trial judge was automatically disqualified because she had previously served as the ADA for the underlying conviction.
(7-2: Barnes dissented, joined by Wilson)

Wells v. Wells, 2023-CA-00674-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancery court’s judgment granting the wife’s petition for divorce and divesting the husband of his interest in real property, holding that there was no evidence that the husband was properly served.
(4-1-4: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson dissented, joined by Barnes, Lawrence and Smith.)

Deere v. Taylor, 2023-CA-00063-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit, holding that the prohibition against claim-splitting was not triggered where the plaintiff filed one lawsuit but was unable to serve the defendants and months later filed a second lawsuit asserting the same causes of action against the same parties while the first lawsuit sat stale.

Other Orders

  • Daly v. Raines, 2022-CT-00600-SCT (denying appellant’s to voluntarily dismiss this appeal)
  • McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2022-CA-01175-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Estate of Staten: Staten v. Pedersen, 2023-CA-00228-COA (denying untimely motion tor additional time to file a motion for rehearing)
  • Stewart v. State, 2024-TS-00606-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)

September 3, 2024 Hand Down Page

September 10, 2024 Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 11, 2022

I did not post summaries last week because was out of town all week. I plan to do a post summarizing last week’s decisions at some point, but today is not that day because the Court of Appeals just handed down nine more opinions.

Today was a big day for Rule 4 and for workers’ comp, with two decisions for each of those subject areas. One of the workers’ comp decisions has a significant amount of analysis of the issue of whether the claimant overcame the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity. The other workers’ comp decision provides some clarity (and teeth) to the affirmative defense of intoxication. Additionally, we learned today that you should not white-out the defendant’s name on a summons after it is issued, write the name of the defendant to be served over the white-out, and then serve that altered summons on your defendant. There is also a divorce case dealing with child support, several criminal cases, and a lone PCR case.

Carnley v. State, 2021-KA-00438-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of rape, declining to reverse based on the exclusion of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement because no proffer was made and holding there was no error in the admission of expert testimony, that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, that the jury was properly instructed to continue its deliberation in lieu of a Sharplin instruction, and that the trial court did not commit cumulative error.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wharton v. State, 2021-CA-00136-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Procedure)
Reversing a default judgment on a civil asset forfeiture petition, holding that the State failed to “strictly” comply with the Rule 4 requirements for service by publication, that the respondent did not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process by failing to plead it in his answer because the answer was filed after the entry of default, and that the case should be remanded to give the State an opportunity to show good cause for failing to serve process before the statute of limitations expired.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion and Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE 1– There is a lot of civil and appellate procedure in this opinion (Miss. R. Civ. P. 4, 55; Miss. R. App. P. 2, 31). The appellate procedure ruling was interesting because the appellant missed his briefing deadline, but the Court of Appeals held that he should have been afforded 14 days to correct this “deficiency” and since he filed two days late he was within that window. This is interesting, but not a maneuver I plan to attempt.

Note 2 – I also want to point out this holding that although it is a fact-bound holding, these are facts one could find oneself bound up in.

Howard Industries v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of sanctions against the Employer’s counsel for attempting to mislead the Commission, the Commission’s finding that the claimant had overcome the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarding permanent disability benefits for her 2007 injury, and the Commission’s award of 38% industrial loss of use of her right upper extremity for her 2015 injury.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part (on the sanction issue), joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McCarty, and Judge Smith. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon the affirmative defense of intoxication, holding that the Employer’s payment of benefits did not estop the Employer from asserting the intoxication defense that was pleaded in the answer and that the very presence of marijuana in the claimant’s system raised the presumption of intoxication.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case seems to answer a question that has lingered since the MWCA was amended to add the intoxication defense about what the effect of a positive drug test that does not give any indication of the degree of intoxication. In this case, the Court of Appeals decisively that any amount of intoxication triggers the presumption. A claimant can still seek to overcome that presumption, but based on the Meek decision a claimant cannot overcome the presumption by pointing to a lack of proof of the level of marijuana in the claimant’s system.

Ponder v. Ponder, 2020-CA-01196-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding child support retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification but holding that there was no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees against the father for failing to comply with an agreed order.
(9-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Villareal v. State, 2021-CP-00440-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Carruthers v. State, 2021-KA-00654-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth trafficking as subsequent offender in possession of a firearm near a church and possession of firearm by felon, holding that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged failures to object at various points in the trial or for alleged failure to investigate or for alleged failure to stipulate to a prior felony to keep evidence of the prior felony.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Arrington v. Anderson, 2021-CA-00233-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of two identical negligence lawsuits, holding that a summons that was altered after issuance to change the name of the party to be summonsed to the defendant’s name and then served on the defendant was not valid service of process, that since process was not served the statute of limitations had expired the first lawsuit, and that the second lawsuit was not a “refiling” of the first since it was filed while the first suit was still pending.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Daniels v. State, 2021-KA-01067-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of armed robbery, two counts and aggravated assault, one count of house burglary, and one count of grand larceny, holding that the circuit court did not err in telling the jury panel that the defendant was charged as a habitual offender or in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about the defendant’s apprehension, arrest, and felony charges that immediately followed the activities for which he was convicted in this trial.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (denying rehearing)
Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (denying rehearing)
Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (granting appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief)
Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying State’s motion to dismiss appeal)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of February 24, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today: one civil procedure decision on interlocutory appeal, one MDES decision, and two decisions affirming criminal convictions.

University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Jensen, 2020-IA-872-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Statute of Limitations/Service of Process)
Reversing, on interlocutory appeal, the county court’s ruling granting the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve process, holding that the plaintiff did not show good cause where the plaintiff attempted to serve process on an administrative assistant, who accepted service on behalf of UMMC’s CEO, instead of the attorney general. Because the statute of limitations had expired, judgment was rendered in favor of UMMC.

“As neither inadvertence, mistake of counsel, or ignorance of the rules suffice to establish good cause, the county court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that Jensen had shown good cause for an extension of time to serve process under Rule 4(h).”

Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr v. Jensen, 2020-IA-827-SCT (Miss. 2022) (citation omitted).

Mississippi Department of Employment Security v. Dover Trucking, LLC, 2020-CC-1267-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agency/Employment)
Reversing the circuit court’s order that reversed the MDES Board of Review’s decision that the claimant was an “employee” of a trucking company, holding that that the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Williams v. State, 2020-KA-772-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Rebuttal Evidence)
Affirming conviction of one count of sexual battery, holding that the circuit court did not err in admitting State’s rebuttal evidence related to the defendant’s ankle monitor that had not been disclosed prior to trial because that evidence was not within the State’s due diligence/disclosure obligations prior to trial based on the defendant’s pre-trial representations. The supreme court also held that the circuit court did not err in excluding evidence that the minor victim had previously twerked on the school bus and that the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim was meritless.

Williams v. State, 2019-CT-1007-SCT (en banc) (Criminal – Felony/Accomplice Liability)
Affirming, on writ of certiorari, convictions for two counts of conspiracy and two counts of possession with intent to distribute, holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict on accomplice liability rather than constructive possession where an inmate was directing a drug-trafficking ring from prison over the phone and whose home was found to have large amounts of cocaine and marijuana, as well as $93,259 in cash.

Other Orders

Ward v. Cranford, 2020-CT-410-SCT (denying petition for writ of certiorari)
Brown v. State, 2020-M-630 (denying petition for leave to proceed in trial court and for permission to file successive petition for post-conviction collateral relief)
State v. Corrothers, 2021-IA-836-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)
Cooper v. State, 2021-CT-1012-SCT (dismissing pro se “writ of certiorari”)

Hand Down List for February 24, 2022