The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. One is a unique decision addressing sovereign immunity, full faith and credit, and comity. One is a chapter in a post-foreclosure eviction saga. The last is an appeal of a felony conviction with a Lindsey brief.
The Promenade D’Iberville, LLC v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 2023-CA-01273-SCT (Civil – Other) Reversing dismissal of a claim against a utility from another state for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, holding that the suit for damages against the utility did not violate full faith and credit or comity principles. (9-0: Sullivan for the Court)
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Carbo, 2024-CA-00277-SCT (Civil – Real Property) Affirming the county court’s decision granting a homeowner’s motion to dismiss a claim for eviction and back rent filed by the company that purchased the home in a foreclosure sale but subsequently sold it, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the company’s motion to substitute the subsequent purchaser as plaintiff, in dismissing the company’s suit for lack of standing, or in finding that the company’s suit was barred by res judicata. (9-0: Coleman for the Court)
Clark v. State, 2024-KA-00446-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of trafficking eutylone, holding that after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief, the pro se brief, and the record, that the appeal lacked merit and no issues warranted supplemental briefing. (9-0: King for the Court)
Other Orders
Jordan v. State, 1998-DP-00901-SCT (denying motion for rehearing as to execution date)
Arnold v. State, 2023-CT-00519-SCT (denying cert)
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Carbo, 2024-CA-00277-SCT (denying motion to dismiss for lack of standing)
Jordan v. State, 2024-DR-01272-SCT (denying rehearing)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and one bonus opinion Thursday of last week. There are a few real property cases including a restrictive covenants case. There are two interesting speedy trial cases among several other direct criminal appeals.
February 13, 2025
Johnson v. Cleveland, 2023-CA-01011-COA (Civil – Real Property) Reversing the chancery court’s decision in a tax sale and forfeited tax land patents, holding that a potential adverse possession claim did not confer standing, that the plaintiff lacked standing per section 29-1-21, and that the chancellor erred in declaring the tax sale void and ordering that the forfeited tax land patents be cancelled. (6-4: Westbrooks dissented, joined by Barnes, McDonald, and Lawrence)
February 18, 2025
Wallace v. State, 2023-KA-00721-COAconsolidated with 2023-KA-00723-COA, consolidated with 2023-KA-00888-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming convictions of three brothers who were tried together of capital murder, holding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, that the trial court’s decision to allow an investigator to testify about a witness’s prior statement was harmless error, that the trial court did not in error for allowing testimony of prior bad acts to which there was no timely objection, that there was no violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial under the totality of the circumstances, and that one brother’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument was without merit. (7-3-0: Lawrence and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)
Note – The speedy trial discussion is worth reading if that is in your wheelhouse.
1st Step Sober Living LLC v. Cleveland, 2023-CA-00665-COA (Civil – Other) Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting residents’ request for injunctive relief preventing a home in a subdivision from being used by individuals recovering from substance abuse disorder, holding that the sale of the subject property did not render the case moot because damages were sought, that the proposed use was a commercial endeavor that was prohibited by restrictive covenants, and the chancellor did not err in determining that the rehab home did not sufficiently prove that the tenants would fit the “handicap” criteria for FHA purposes. (10-0)
Brooks v. State, 2023-KA-01081-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of possession of a controlled substance and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. (10-0)
Chambers v. State, 2023-KA-00626-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of one count of capital murder and two counts of felonious child abuse, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress her statement to investigators where she voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived her Miranda rights and that the State presented sufficient evidence for all convictions. (9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)
LoanMax, LLC v. Castle Columbus I, LLC, 2023-CA-00790-COA (Civil – Contract) Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s rulings in a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief involving a commercial lease renewal, holding on direct appeal that the chancellor did not err in finding that lessee did not provide notice required to effectively renew the lease, on cross-appeal that the chancellor did not err in finding that the owner is not entitled to damages for roofing or HVAC or to attorney’s fees, and on cross-appeal that the chancellor erred in her findings on holdover rent and remanded for a determination of what back rent may be owed. (9-0: Barnes did not participate)
Taylor v. State, 2023-KA-00245-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, holding that the defendant’s right to speedy trial was not violated. (7-4*-0: McCarty specially concurred, joined by McDonald and St. Pe (who also joined the majority); Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Note – The constitutional right to speedy trial got a lot of air time today. Here is how McCarty’s special concurrence on the subject kicks off:
Spearman v. State, 2023-KA-01091-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record. (10-0)
Fears v. State, 2023-KA-00174-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of capital murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and aggravated assault against victims responding to a fake Facebook Marketplace ad, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an accomplice jury instruction. (10-0)
Johnson v. State, 2023-KA-00369-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming convictions of capital murder and felony child abuse, holding that the defendant abandoned his motion to server the counts against him when he failed to pursue a motion to hearing a decision and, further, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the motion to sever. (10-0)
Other Orders
Johnson v. SW Gaming, LLC, 2023-CA-00505-COA (denying rehearing)
Simmons v. State, 2023-KA-00518-COA (denying rehearing)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One addressed whether a father who relinquished parental rights qualified as a wrongful death beneficiary of the child. The other addressed the status of the “colorable interest standard” for standing analysis. There was also an order granting a petition for reinstatement to the bar.
Gibson v. McNatt,2023-CA-00007-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death) Affirming the chancery court’s finding that a deceased minor’s father who had previously relinquished all parental duties and rights in Texas was not a wrongful death beneficiary under Mississippi law, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion because the Texas termination order was valid and was not subject to collateral attack under Mississippi law. (9-0)
Pearson v. Eubanks, 2022-CT-00011-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates) Affirming the Court of Appeals that reversed the chancery court’s ruling, holding that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the petitioners had standing, but emphasizing that the Court of Appeals has improperly relied on the “colorable interest standard” that has been abandoned by the Supreme Court. (8-1-0: King concurred in result only without writing)
Practice Point – The Supreme Court’s short opinion had this to say about the colorable interest standard:
Other Orders
Toolpushers Supply Co. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue, 2021-CT-01186-SCT (granting cert)
Prather v. State, 2021-CT-01416-SCT (denying cert)
Prophet v. State, 2022-CT-00933-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
Jones v. The Mississippi Bar, 2022-BR-01256-SCT (granting petition for reinstatement)
Gibson v. McNatt, 2023-CA-00007-SCT (denying motion to take judicial notice, objections and/or responses to various filings, and motions to strike)
The one opinion today from the Mississippi Supreme Court delves into the issue of standing. It addresses traditional standing and associational standing.
Jackson Public School District, v. Jackson Federation of Teachers and PSRPS, 2022-CA-00464-SCT (Civil – Other) Reversing the trial court’s denial of the school district’s motion to dismiss a claim that the school district violated federation members’ free speech rights, holding that the federation lacked standing in its own right and lacked associational standing because the federation offered no direct evidence that any of its members were employed by the school district. (6-3: Coleman dissented, joined by Kitchens and King)
NOTE – This case seemed to hing on the fact that the federation did not prove that any of its members were employed by the school district.
Other Orders
Nunn v. State, 2021-CT-01371-SCT (denying cert)
Parker v. Mississippi Department of Health, 2022-CT-00552-SCT (denying cert)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 