Tag: State Boards and Agencies

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 1, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals kicked off November with eight opinions. There are two domestic cases dealing with custody and divorce, a personal injury case adjacent to a workers’ comp claim with a statute of limitation issue, two reversals in administrative cases (MDES and MDHS), two PCR cases, and one criminal case.

Jarvis v. State, 2021-CP-00930-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty plea waived his defective-indictment claim based on alleged insufficiency in the State’s evidence and that his ineffective assistance claim lacked merit.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CA-01162-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s child-custody modification order, holding that the chancery court manifestly erred by finding an adverse effect on the child, did not err in denying attorney’s fees, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel completion of a financial disclosure statement.
(4-2-4: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Smith.)

Baughman v. Baughman, 2021-CA-00074-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce proceeding, affirming denial of the ex-husband’s claim for separate maintenance, affirming the denial of divorce on the grounds of adultery, and reversing the denial of divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
(5-4-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; and Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Keys v. Rehabilitation, Inc., 2021-CA-01338-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of certain claims as barred by the statute of limitations, holding that the plaintiff’s claims against a third-party (not the Employer, Carrier, or TPA) arising from the utilization review process in the course of his treatment for a workers’ comp injury were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – A critical aspect of this decision was that the lawsuit did not arise from the denial of workers’ comp benefits:

Bowman v. State, 2020-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state medical examiner to testify about the cause and manner of death, in denying motions to suppress evidence seized at the defendant’s Mississippi property and in his vehicle in Utah, in denying a flight-evidence motion in limine and giving a flight-evidence jury instruction, or in refusing the defendant’s request for additional circumstantial evidence instructions, and that the convictions were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and were based on sufficient evidence.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

MDHS v. Reaves, 2021-SA-01133-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s order directing MDHS to reimburse the plaintiff for past child-support payments, holding that reimbursement was improper because a noncustodial parent cannot recover the child-support payments he made on behalf of his child.
(7-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second PCR petition, holding that the court did not err when it was not persuaded that the guilty plea lacked a factual basis and was involuntary, that the indictment was defective, or that counsel was ineffective.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Vector Transportation Co. v. MDES, 2021-CC-00576-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the MDES Board of Review’s determination that an employee was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the employer met its burden of proof to show that the employee’s termination was for misconduct.
(6-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and joined in part by Judge McDonald; Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (denying rehearing)

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 20, 2022

[For reasons unknown, when I tried to publish this post earlier WordPress would only show the title with none of the content in the body. It seems to be working now. My apologies to those who have gotten multiple emails with no content.]

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four cases today, all civil. Two in particular are of general interest to civil practitioners. One deals with whether an et seq. or “catchall” defense was sufficient to preserve the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and the other reviews a discovery order from the trial court. Then there are two jurisdiction cases: one deciding whether the circuit court (as opposed to the oil and gas board) has jurisdiction to hear claims against an oil company and the other whether the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear imperfect but timely notices of appeal from local government decisions.

Tiger Production Company, LLC v. Pace, 2021-IA-00315-SCT (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss on interlocutory appeal, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations that an oil company put a saltwater disposal line across the plaintiff’s property without permission were purely common law claims and could not be remedied by the MS Oil and Gas Board.
(8-0: Justice Beam did not participate)

Lawson v. City of Jackson, 2021-IA-00532-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part a discovery order from the trial court on interlocutory appeal, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a protective order providing that a party did not have to respond to written discovery that would not be due until after the discovery deadline but holding that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the plaintiff’s access to public records and in preventing the plaintiff from introducing any such public records at trial.
(9-0)

Pruitt v. Sargent, 2021-CA-00511-SCT (Civil – Personal injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that the defendants waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to adequately plead it in their answer.
(6-2-0: Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice Griffis; Justice Beam concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

PRACTICE POINT – The Supreme Court laid down some black-letter law today on pleading the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and its reasoning probably applies to other affirmative defenses. The Court took a look at the defenses that were pleaded and found they fell short of the standard:

Then, the Court said flatly that et seq. didn’t cut it:

Longo v. City of Waveland, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal in two consolidated cases where the circuit court dismissed appeals from local governments for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a notice of appeal that is timely filed but that erroneously omits a petitioner’s name has a procedural defect that does not defeat jurisdiction and can be corrected.
(5-4: Justice Chamberlin dissented, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Maxwell, and Justice Beam.)

Other Orders

Bridges v. State, 2020-CT-00816-SCT (denying cert)
SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Appellate Decisions of September 6 and September 8, 2022

I was out of the office for an extracurricular conference on Tuesday. (I will issue a full refund for my failure to timely deliver those summaries.) All we got from the Mississippi Supreme Court this week is a rehearing denial and a denial of an application for post-conviction collateral relief. I have written even-shorter-than-normal snapshots of the Court of Appeals decisions below, which turned out to be almost entirely PCR and state boards and agencies decisions.

Supreme Court Orders of September 8, 2022

Chatman v. State, 2016-M-00424 (denying application for post-conviction collateral relief and warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in sanctions and restrictions on filing in forma pauperis)

Russell v. State, 2019-CT-01670-SCT (denying rehearing)

Supreme Court Hand Down List

Court of Appeals Decisions of September 6, 2022

Burns v. State, 2021-KA-00310-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth and sentencing, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s instruction on possession, and denying the pro se argument that he received ineffective assistance without prejudice.
(10-0)

Caston v. State, 2021-CA-00397-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff waived the right to challenge proportionality by pleading guilty and, in any event, failed to prove gross disproportionality.
(10-0)

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00538-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment mandating specific performance of a real estate contract, holding that the appellant’s argument did not raise issues of reversible error, lacked citation to authority, and were beyond the scope of appellate review.
(10-0)

Beasley v. State, 2021-CA-00653-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the two-prong Strickland test required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Norwood v. State, 2021-CA-00802-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PRC motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove that his due process rights were violated or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
(10-0)

Roberts v. State, 2021-CA-00998-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff’s claim as to the voluntariness of his guilty plea was procedurally barred and meritless and that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(10-0)

Wilson v. City of Greenville, 2021-CA-00316-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s untimely appeal of the Greenville City Council’s decision to accept and enforce his resignation as police chief and in granting the City’s replevin action for city equipment in the plaintiff’s possession and denying the plaintiff’s counterclaim and motions to dismiss/stay, holding that the City’s decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence and that the circuit court committed no error.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Thomas v. PERS, 2021-SA-00375-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment affirming the PERS Board, holding that the Board’s decision that the plaintiff failed to prove she could no longer perform her duties as a bus aid as a result of her workplace accident was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
(10-0)

Laurel School District v. Lanier, 2021-CA-00384-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against the school district stemming from the school district’s failure to conduct a nonrenewal hearing, holding that the chancery court had jurisdiction to consider the complaint seeking relief for due process violations and to dismiss the claim so the plaintiff could obtain the hearing he had been denied.
(7-3: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McDonald)

Other Court of Appeals Orders

Brewer v. Kemp, 2020-CA-00214-COA (denying rehearing)

Court of Appeals Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 30, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today. These decisions cover the MTCA, tax assessments, waiver of arbitration, a couple of criminal convictions, and a couple of PCR cases.

Belmer v. State, 2021-CP-00398-COA (Civil – Other)
Dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from a decision of MDOC’s Administrative Remedy Program as moot because the plaintiff was released on parole during the pendency of the appeal and was not longer incarcerated.
(10-0)

Belmer v. State, 2021-CP-00410-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that it was procedurally barred and without merit.
(10-0)

NOTE– Yes, the first two opinions dealt with the same plaintiff. No typo this time.

Simpson County School District v. Wigley, 2021-CA-00009-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment in an MTCA case against a school district alleging that the district failed to provide adequate supervision when children played tag while awaiting bus repairs, holding (1) that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the district proximately caused the injury that occurred during the course of what seems to have been a garden-variety game of tag and (2) that the plaintiff failed to prove that a failure to render aid caused the plaintiff’s damages
(6-3*: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Westbrooks; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Carlton and in party by Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence)

NOTE – The plaintiff argued that the district was liable for negligent supervision by failing to render timely and appropriate aid to the injured child, but the Court of Appeals noted the plaintiff presented no legal authority for such a duty and declined to rule on the issue of whether a duty existed since the causation element was lacking:

Wilson v. Lexington Manor Senior Care, LLC, 2021-CA-00072-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s order compelling arbitration of a medical malpractice claim against a nursing home, holding that the nursing home waived arbitration by substantial invocation of litigation that included filing an answer with 38 defenses that did not include arbitration as a defense and filing a motion to dismiss and pursuing that motion to a ruling, all before filing a motion to compel arbitration.

NOTE – The nursing home argued that it did not find the arbitration agreement until after the motion to dismiss had been briefed and heard. But the Court of Appeals was not persuaded by this argument since the arbitration agreement had been in the nursing home’s possession the entire time.
(8-2-0: Judge Carlton and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result only)

McNair v. State, 2021-KA-01121-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Perkins v. State, 2021-KA-00129-COA (Civil – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and sentence as a non-violent habitual offender after the defendant’s counsel filed a Lindsey brief, holding that the one-page pro se brief denying the crime and making argument after declining to testify at trial did not reveal any basis for reversal.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

BBM Ventures, LLC v. Frierson, 2021-CA-00248-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment affirming MDOR assessments for sales tax liability and for income tax liabilities, holding that the chancellor (1) did not err in ruling that the taxpayers had adequate notice and failed to appeal the sales tax assessment, (2) did not err in evaluating sales tax assessment that arguably did not account for personal use and donation of some inventory, (3) did not err in finding that the taxpayers failed to produce source documentation for the majority of their business expenses or affirming individual income-tax assessment, and (4) did not err in affirming the fraud penalty assessed in conjunction with one of the income-tax assessments.
(8-0: Judge Carlton and Judge McCarty did not participate)

Luckett v. State, 2021-CP-01248-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error claims lacked merit.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Parker v. Ross, 2020-CA-01055-COA (denying motions for rehearing filed by five parties)

Finley v. PERS, 2021-SA-00089-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. Adams County Youth Court, 2021-CP-00196-COA (denying rehearing)

Pickle v. State, 2021-CP-00972-COA (denying rehearing)

Other Orders

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 25, 2022

After a full day of lawyering on the road, here are my summaries of today’s decisions from the Mississippi Supreme Court. There is a decision in a dispute between a report and the Secretary of State over use and development of tidelands, a decision in a reimbursement dispute between the Division of Medicaid and a nursing home, and a decision in a workers’ comp bad faith case analyzing whether a compromise settlement of a comp claim on a denied basis constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies.

State v. Long Beach Harbor Resort, LLC, 2021-CA-00430-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the resort, holding that the Secretary of State’s lease with the city related to development and use of tidelands had ratified a prior lease between the city and the resort and therefore the State had no right to require the resort to enter into a separate tidelands lease.
(9-0)

Mississippi Division of Medicaid v. Yalobusha County, 2021-SA-00030-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling in a dispute between the DOM and a nursing home over costs the facility submitted for reimbursement on its Medicaid cost report, holding that the DOM correctly interpreted statutes and its decisions denying the costs at issue were supported by substantial evidence.
(7-2: Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell)

Thornhill v. Walker-Hill Environmental, 2020-CT-01181-SCT (Civil – Torts/Bad Faith)
Affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s workers’ comp bad faith suit, holding that the plaintiff’s 9(I) settlement of his workers’ comp claim without a finding of compensability constituted an exhaustion of his administrative remedies and the circuit court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the bad faith claim.
(9-0)

ADDENDUM – A point of contention in Thornhill was the Supreme Court’s prior holding in Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 2002). In Cook, the Supreme Court held that a 13(j) indemnity-only settlement under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37(10) constituted exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Employer/Carrier in Thornhill argued that Cook did not apply in this case because the plaintiff in Thornhill had settled on a compromise basis and compensability was never admitted or determined by the Commission. But the Court of Appeals dug into the record in Cook and determined that the Supreme Court in Cook mislabeled the settlement in that case. The Cook settlement was actually a 9(i) settlement under § 71-3-29 (i.e. full and final settlement), but the Supreme Court mistakenly labeled it as a 13(j) indemnity settlement. The Supreme Court in Thornhill agreed that it erred when it labeled the settlement in Cook a 13(j) settlement under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-37(10) but found that this mislabeling did not disturb the findings in Cook or affect the outcome in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in Thornhill held that a 9(i) compromise settlement constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies because the parties “had no further business with the Commission.”

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (dismissing motion for appointment of counsel for representation for successive petition for PCR)

Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CT-00095-SCT (denying cert)

Denham v. Denham, 2020-CT-00675-SCT (granting cert)

Tallant v. State, 2020-CT-01077-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 23, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is an arbitration enforcement decision, a legal malpractice settlement enforcement decision, an appeal of a second-degree murder conviction, a wrongful termination decision, and a PCR decision.

Chandler v. State, 2020-CP-01060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that most of the claims were procedurally barred and all of them were without merit.
(10-0)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the court court’s order granting in part a motion to compel arbitration, holding (1) that the circuit court did not err in granting arbitration to those plaintiffs whose attorney contracts had an arbitration provision, holding that the defendants did not waive arbitration under the peculiar facts of this case even though the motion to compel arbitration was not heard for more than five years, (2) that the plaintiffs had not specifically and clearly alleged fraudulent inducement, (3) that it was not error to compel arbitration over the plaintiffs’ argument that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty and that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and (4) that it was not error to apply the arbitration provision to conduct that occurred before it was executed.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming the circuit court’s order enforcing a settlement release signed by a former client agreeing to release malpractice claims against a law firm for $300,000 and ordering the law firm to pay the $288,000 balance, holding that the settlement release was not barred by the statute of frauds, that the amount bargained was not unreasonable, that facts deemed admitted to requests for admissions that were not answered were conclusively established, that the law firm waived its defenses to the legal malpractice claim by negotiating a release, and that there was no requirement to file a suggestion of death.
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – These facts are wild and the opinion is worth you time. A non-lawyer employee lied to the plaintiff about filing suit and a trial date and the plaintiff only found out eight years later. The plaintiff negotiated with the same non-lawyer employee and received $18,000 and later a promise for $288,000 more, but the law firm did not sent a release. Litigation ensued over the agreement. Sadly, the plaintiff died of cancer during the litigation and did not get to see things made right.

Moffett v. State, 2021-KA-00622-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that (1) the defendant did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to request a culpable-negligence instruction, failure to request an accident or misfortune instruction, or for admitting that there was no evidentiary basis for a heat-of-passion manslaughter jury instruction; (2) the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress her statement on coercion grounds; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion.)

Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the University Personnel Action Review Board’s (PARB) decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination, holding that (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction; (2) the plaintiff was afforded due process despite her arguments that she was not given proper notice, not provided with adequate reasons for her termination prior to her hearing, not given the PARB’s findings of fact, and the investigation was inadequate; (3) the termination did not violate the First Amendment; and (4) the termination was supported by substantial evidence including evidence of disrespectful and confrontational behavior towards coworkers.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (denying rehearing)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (denying rehearing)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (denying rehearing)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (recalling mandate so appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 30, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today: a case that resolved a fight over the Mississippi Division of Medicaid’s efforts to recoup overpayments to a senior care facility, an MTCA issue that wasn’t, and a post-conviction death penalty decision regarding a request to transfer DNA evidence.

Wilkinson County Senior Care, LLC v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid, 2020-SA-01332-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s order allowing the Mississippi Division of Medicaid to recoup a substantial overpayment made to a senior care facility for the years 2002-2003 that the DOM did not demand until 2011, holding that the delay did not bar DOM’s recover because (1) neither equitable estoppel nor any other legal or equitable principles barred the claim; (2) the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous, or unsupported by substantial evidence; and (3) the delay did not violate the facility’s due process rights.
(9-0)

Strickland v. Rankin County School District, 2019-CT-01669-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA/Negligence)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district, juking the question of whether the defendant was entitled to discretionary function immunity (that split the COA 5-5) and holding that the plaintiff had not established the basic element of negligence where the evidence provided by the plaintiff–a cross-country runner for the school–was stung by a wasp, was examined by at least one coach, was told to “man up” and run the race, began running, felt dizzy just after the mile marker, and fell and hit his head.
(5-1-2) (Justice Ishee concurred in result only, joined in part by Chief Justice Randolph. Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King. Justice Beam did not participate.)

NOTE – Here is a summary of the Court’s analysis of the element of breach:

Manning v. State, 2020-CA-01096-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a request to transfer DNA evidence to a different facility for additional DNA testing after the Court previously granted PCR to allow testing but six years of testing had allegedly yielded inconclusive results, holding that the circuit court had authority to decide the motion to transfer the evidence and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.
(7-2) (Justice King dissented, joined by Justice King)

Other Orders

Rules for Court Reporters, 89-R-99021-SCT (appointing Hon. Leslie D. King, Kati Vogt, Julie Mims, and Latanya Allen as members of the Board of Certified Court Reporters for two-year terms from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024)

Bolton v. John Lee, P.A., 2020-CA-00344-SCT (assigning appeal to Court of Appeals for a decision within 270 days of the entry of this order)

Doe v. Doe, 2020-CT-00853-SCT (denying cert)

Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, 2020-CT-00882-SCT (denying cert)

Jiles v. State, 2021-CT-00034-SCT (denying cert)

The Mississippi Bar v. Mayers, 2021-BD-00268-SCT (suspending Urura W. Mayers from the practice of law pending final resolution of the petition for discipline filed by The Mississippi Bar)

Longo v. City of Waveland, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00735-SCT (consolidating two appeals)

Johnson v. State, 2022-M-00303 (denying reconsideration)

Hand Down List

I try to keep things apolitical around here, but my two older boys and I went to Oxford yesterday and we can confirm that the Ole Miss Rebels did in fact win the 2022 College World Series. The boys obtained autographs from the gracious and patient Dylan DeLucia, Peyton Chatagnier, and Coach Bianco as evidence.

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 9, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down six opinions today. Topics include public project bidding, summary judgment in a property damage case, conversion by the owner of a collection agency, an appeal of a post summary judgment decision granting a Rule 60(b) motion based on fraud, a unanimous pro se PCR appeal win, and an election contest.

The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Eutaw Construction Company, Inc., 2020-IA-00881-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that reversed the MSPA’s award of a project to the lowest bidder whose bid contained multiple errors and awarded the project to the second lowest bidder, holding that the lowest bidder’s errors were minor, the intended correct bid was evident on the face of the bid, and the corrected bid by the lowest bidder was a decrease in price.
(All justices concurred.)

Hardin v. Town of Leakesville, Mississippi, 2020-CA-01164-SCT (Civil – Property Damages/Summary Judgment/Proximate Cause)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of Leakesville, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that water that had accumulated under her house was caused by an act or omission attributable to the town.
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion contains a helpful discussion of the exacting standard that applies when a plaintiff seeks to prove causation by circumstantial evidence:

McGee v. Comprehensive Radiology Services, PLLC, 2021-CA-00666-SCT (Civil – Torts/Conversion/Fraud)
Affirming the chancellor’s finding that the president of a collections agency was individually and personally liable for $785,549.71 that she directed her company to delay remitting to a radiology group while also billing for and receiving commissions for collecting that money, holding that while the tort of conversion cannot be used to recover a mere debt it can be used to recover identifiable money belonging to the plaintiff which is what occurred here.
(All justices concurred.)

Riverboat Corporation of Mississippi v. Davis, 2020-IA-01244-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Negligence/Rule 60(b))
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor the casino in a personal injury case stemming from a fall from a casino chair due to the lack of evidence that the casino breached a duty. The plaintiff then filed a motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b)(1) alleging that the defendant committed fraud in its 30(b)(6) deposition based upon information the plaintiff discovered in an unrelated case about another chair at the casino. The circuit court granted the motion to reopen based on fraud and the defendant petitioned for interloc which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion because the plaintiff “fell far short of satisfying all of the elements of fraud” and because this case did not present the requisite “exceptional circumstances” for relief under Rule 60(b).
(All justices concurred.)

Practice Point – This opinion has a helpful summary of what is required to prove fraud under Rule 60(b)(1):

Magee v. State, 2019-CT-01794-SCT (Civil – PCR/Involuntary Guilty Plea)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s pro se PCR motion, holding that the circuit court granted an evidentiary hearing but failed to address the issue of whether the plaintiff’s guilty plead was involuntary because the plaintiff was affirmatively misinformed about the possibility of early release by his trial attorney and failed to allow the plaintiff to call witnesses or present evidence.
(Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Meredith v. Clarksdale Democratic Executive Committee, 2021-EC-00305-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming the trial court’s decision agreeing with the CDEC’s decision that a mayoral candidate resided at a lake house outside of the city limits rather than a funeral home apartment within the city limits, holding that the would-be candidate failed to prove by “absolute proof” that he met the residency requirement on or before the applicable deadline.
(Justice Coleman concurred in part and in the result) (“It is not in the court’s bailiwick to impose its judgment for that of the Legislature.”)

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting response to order granting motion for appointment of counsel for representation for successive petition for post-conviction relief filed by the Circuit Court of Hinds County)

Havard v. State, 2018-CA-01709-SCT (granting motion to file motion for attorney fees and expenses under seal)

Walker v. State, 2020-CT-00228-SCT (denying cert)

McLemore v. State, 2016-M-00364 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court with a warning against future frivolous filings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 31, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. Topics include the fate of a living trust that included a languishing cattle farm, unemployment benefits, alleged bolstering of the testimony of a minor who was the victim of sexual battery, alleged MDEQ violations by a lessee, and a PCR motion.

Stapp v. Stapp, 2020-CA-01282-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings in an action asking the court to divide the corpus of a living trust or, in the alternative, to make a distribution to the beneficiaries, holding that the chancellor did not err in (1) requiring that all the farm equipment be auctioned because the beneficiaries were not able to run the farm at issue and the farm had not been profitable since their father’s death, (2) requiring $50,000 to be maintained in an account for unforeseen expenses since real property remained in the trust, (3) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for rent and utilities during her occupancy of the farmhouse in the trust and allowing her to live there indefinitely, or (4) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for funds she received from cattle sales and not requiring the trust to reimburse the other beneficiary for expenses allegedly incurred for management of the cattle.
(Judge McCarty dissented, arguing that since the documents creating the trusts were not in the record, the trial court modified two trusts without having the terms of the trust or knowing the settlor’s intent.)

Mitchell v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00794-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant’s work-search requirement was not satisfied and declining to review other arguments that were not supported by citations to any authority.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Note – I understand why appellate courts often handle arguments not supported by citations to authority by stating that they are waived, but then analyzing them anyway and explaining that they are meritless. In this case, it was refreshing to see the Court of Appeals simply hold that the arguments were waived and leave it at that.

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request to be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Blocton v. State, 2021-KA-00197-COA (Criminal – Felony/Sexual Battery)
Affirming a conviction of sexual battery of a small child, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim’s foster mother, the forensic interviewer, and an investigator to testify about what the victim disclosed to them over the defendant’s argument that this testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony and (2) the circuit court did not commit plain error in allowing the investigator to testify and that there was no merit to the defendant’s claim that his lawyer rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Biloxi Dock & Ice, LLC v. Back Bay Fuel and Ice, LLC,  2021-CA-00701-COA (Civil – Contract/Lease)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision upholding the county court’s findings in a case arising out of a lease dispute, holding that the county court, as fact-finder, had sufficient evidence to conclude that the purchaser/landowner failed to establish that the lessee had violated MDEQ regulations that would render the lessee in default of the lease.
(All participating judges concurred.)

NOTE – A lessor in this case was named Lesso. Lesso was sometimes referred to as Lessor in the opinion. Had Lesso been the lessee we could have met calamity.

Other Orders

Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CA-00095-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 17, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions today. One is a medical malpractice case that ran afoul of RFAs. There are several criminal appeals, a claim against an estate by a judgment-lien holder, several PRC cases including one with competing opinions on Eighth Amendment issues, and more.

Cunningham v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2021-CP-00428-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for judicial review of two ARP requests against MDOC, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to support his appeal and that, in any event, the plaintiff received sentencing credit for his pretrial detention.
(All judges concurred.)

Pickle v. State, 2021-CP-00972-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motions for writ of mandamus, alternative sentencing, and a new trial or for JNOV regarding his 1978 conviction of capital murder and life imprisonment, holding that the motion was untimely, successive, and meritless.
(All judges concurred.)

Thompson v. State, 2020-KA-01279-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of drive-by-shooting that followed a domestic dispute between the defendant, the defendant’s boyfriend, and the defendant’s boyfriend’s ex-wife. The narrative in the opinion is gripping. In short, it was alleged that an Amber alert was issued for the formerly-married couple’s child when the child was with the defendant and her boyfriend (the child’s father). The couple had a physical altercation with the ex-wife at her work place in the midst of which the defendant instructed the ex-wife to “catch me outside.” Later, the ex-wife apparently inadvertently caught the defendant outside while driving and the defendant shot the ex-wife in the arm. A jury convicted the defendant of one count of drive-by-shooting and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the conviction was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the circuit court did not err in allowing the circuit clerk to testify as an authenticating witness even though she was present throughout the trial where the defendant’s counsel did not object, the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposes “mere suspicion” instruction which would have been cumulative, and the defendant’s counsel was not ineffective.
(All judges concurred.)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Judgment Liens)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling that claims against the estate were not timely, holding that the judgment liens against the decedent survive the time-bar of probate and were reasonably ascertainable to the executrices of the estate.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

McLaughlin v. State, 2020-KA-00360-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, third-degree arson, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the evidence was sufficient for each of the convictions, that the defendants was procedurally barred on appeal from raising an alleged Miranda issue and that there was no plain error on this issue, that the circuit court did not err in admitting a photograph of the victim’s brain sitting on the autopsy table to show the bullet path, and that retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
(All judges concurred.)

PRACTICE POINT – Seeking to exclude gruesome photographs of victims in criminal trials is an uphill climb:

Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Requests for Admissions)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendants’ requests for admissions that were deemed admitted, holding that the trial court did not err in deeming the RFAs as admitted–including an admission that the standard of care was not breached–where the plaintiff did not respond until after the defendants filed their MSJ which was more than five months after the RFAs were served. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff could not rely on responses served in a related federal court proceeding.
(All judges concurred.)

MUSING– My experience is that RFAs are rarely used effectively. In the wild, they usually look like a cartoonish attempt to trick the other side. Something like a deadly CAPTCHA test. I think the best use of RFAs is to whittle down and actually define the contours of disputed issues. And, frankly, RFAs are a way to “shake” a lawsuit that is not being prosecuted and just needs to be dismissed.

Jolly v. State, 2021-KA-00318-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of four counts of statutory rape, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement because there was no merit to the defendant’s claims that he lacked capacity to voluntarily waive his rights or that he was coerced into waiving his rights and giving a statement.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Hood v. A & A Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2021-CA-00207-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Statute of Limitations/Continuing Tort)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ residential flooding claims against a developer and the operator of a gravel pit based on the statute of limitations, holding that the “discovery rule” did not toll the statute of limitations which began to run upon notice of the injury not the cause of the injury and the “continuing tort doctrine” did not apply where there were no “continual unlawful acts” by the defendants.
(McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence, and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge Smith. Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE– I though this was a helpful summary and application of the continuing tort doctrine:

Dortch v. State, 2021-CP-00103-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PCR motion and motion to vacate judgment and finding no error in the circuit’s revocation of the plaintiff’s PRS.
(All judges concurred.)

Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion related to the plaintiff’s 2011 conviction of felony evasion and sentence to life without parole as a habitual offender (with eight prior felony convictions), holding that the Eighth Amendment claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and without merit and that the circuit court did not err in refusing to consider mitigating circumstances surrounding Skinner’s juvenile convictions.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Westbrook, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissenting opinions contain robust discussions of the Eight Amendment analysis.

Other Order

 Tallent v. State, 2020-CP-01077-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List Page