Tag: Summary Judgment

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 17, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There are several criminal cases, a reversal of summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an arbitration denial, and several PCR cases.

Jones v. State, 2021-KA-01263-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial after a prospective juror mentioned the defendant’s past wrongdoing, that the verdict was based on sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not be appropriately addressed on direct appeal and denying the issue without prejudice.
(10-0)

Creel v. State, 2021-CP-00977-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff was properly sentenced under the statute in place at the time of his offenses and that his guilty pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate)

Smith v. State, 2021-CA-01259-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a motion for PCR without evidentiary hearing, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given, and that the trial court did not err in ruling without an evidentiary hearing.
(9-0: Judge Smith did not participate)

Anderson v. State, 2021-KA-01340-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of crimes in other counties under Rule 404(b) and that there was no merit to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on lack of objections to hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Hathorne v. State, 2021-CA-00306-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a motion for PCR, holding that the indictment was defective for failing to charge a crime but that the claim was procedurally barred.
(2-4-4: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence and Judge Smith concurred in the result only; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Carlton, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McDonald)

Brooks v. Jeffreys, 2021-CA-01113-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a slip and fall case, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the cleaning company breached the duty of care where the plaintiff slipped and fell on the floor of her residence that was actively being mopped when she slipped.
(9-1: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion)

NOTE – Because the plaintiff slipped and fell in her own residence that was being cleaned by the defendant, the Court of Appeals analyzed this is a general negligence action and not a premises liability case.

Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. Hancock, 2021-CA-00605-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that where a life insurance policy was voluntarily entered into, cancelled, and then reinstated via forgery of the insured’s signature, the arbitration agreement in the policy was not enforceable.
(6-4: Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Wilson, and Judge Greenlee)

Other Orders

$153,340.00 v. State, 2020-CA-01409-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 10, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. These decisions cover a wide range of areas including wills, felonies, personal injury, defamation, and adoption. One of the more interesting and potentially useful decisions analyzes the admissibility of images from Google Earth and measurements generated by Google Earth.

Perrigin v. State, 2021-KA-00858-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that the Confrontation Clause was not violated since the victim did testify at trial, and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised on a PCR petition.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 2021-CA-01208-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s ruling in a will contest, holding that the word “should” was permissive and that, in any event, even if there was a mandatory requirement that one son have an opportunity to purchase a property there was sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that he did have such a chance.
(10-0)

Bolton v. Lee, 2020-CA-00344-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming a dismissal for failure to state a claim in favor of a banker and a bank and affirming summary judgment in favor of a lawyer and law firm, holding that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from recovering in a civil action on the same facts that formed the basis of their criminal convictions of tax evasion and filing false tax returns.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Pope v. Martin, 2021-CA-00367-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant in a defamation and wiretapping suit, holding that there was no error in granting summary judgment without a hearing or without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law, and that summary judgment on the defamation claim was proper but that there were genuine fact issues on the wiretapping claim.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

NOTE – Summary judgment rulings made without any accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain the basis for the decision are frustrating for litigants and parties. This is especially true when no hearing was given. There are certainly cases where such rulings make sense, but when the parties have spent considerable time and energy in briefing issues it is helpful to know why you won or lost. Without an explanation of why summary judgment was granted or denied, litigants do not have an opportunity to see where they went wrong and hone their craft. It also does not help the parties focus the issues on appeal. It is clear that Rule 52 does not apply to summary judgments but rules can always be amended.

Evilsizer v. Beau Rivage Resorts, LLC, 2021-CA-01222-COA (Civil – Personal injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the owner of a cooking trailer who was sued by an 18-wheeler driver who struck the awning of the cooking trailer, holding that the there were no genuine fact issues where the evidence showed that the awning was closed approximately one hour before the collision and there was no evidence that the trailer owner opened the awning before the accident or had actual or constructive notice that the awning was open and extending into the roadway.
(8-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks did not participate)

Boutwell v. Fairchild, 2021-CA-01046-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming termination of parent rights and allowing adoption, holding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, that the child was eligible for adoption because the chancery court had properly assumed original and exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, and that the chancellor did not err in finding that parental rights should be terminated.
(8-2-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Green v. State, 2021-KA-00613-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s lesser-included instruction for simple domestic violence because the evidence did not support that instruction.
(10-0)

Taylor v. State, 2021-KA-00721-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of violating state law by living within 3,000 feet of a playground as a registered sex offender, holding that the sex-offender-registry law is not unconstitutionally vague by what is meant by “playground” or how 3,000 feet should be measured and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but reversing because the Google Earth map used to calculate the distance was not properly authenticated and contained hearsay.
(6-2-2: Judge Greenlee and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty)

NOTES – The majority and the partial dissent engage in a collegial discussion of whether the term “playground” encompasses the property on which a playground sits or just the playground itself, the dissent arguing for the narrow construction. Both the majority and the partial dissent have interesting analyses of the admissibility of Google Earth images and measurements generated by it (without much disagreement on this issue).

Colburn v. State, 2021-KA-00865-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction for sale of meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
(5-1-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald, and joined in part by Judge Lawrence)

Other Orders

None

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 3, 2023

Happy New Year! The courts are back in action so I am too. The first hand down list of 2023 has four opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Two are personal injury cases, one is a custody modification case, and the other is a PCR case.

Mallard v. State, 2022-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that a discrepancy in the sentencing order and transcript was a scrivener’s error not warranting reversal.
(10-0)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming judgment in favor of the defendant hospital after a bench trial in a negligence suit stemming from a fall while the plaintiff was get onto a medical transport bus, holding that the duty owed was the duty owed to an invitee and there was no evidence that the steps to the bus were not reasonably safe, that the decision was not against the weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony that the driver was in the habit of of being late, and that an objective person could not find the judge biased based on a comment she made while stepping down from the bench.
(7-2-0: Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Moreland v. Spears, 2021-CA-00714-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming modification of custody and visitation, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion by awarding the mother sole legal custody, by restricting the father’s visitation, or by not finding the mother in contempt for withholding visitation during March 2020 while the COVID “stay-home order” was still active.
(10-0)

COVID AND THE LAW – The father argued that the mother should be held in contempt for withholding a visitation that was due to occur during the March 2020 COVID shutdown. The mother testified that she tried to set up alternate times but the father refused. The Court of Appeals held that the particular facts of this case supported the chancellor’s decision of no contempt:

Cornell v. MDHS, 2021-SA-00784-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment in favor of MDHS in a case alleging that MDHS placed the plaintiff in foster care with a know pedophile, holding that MDHS is statutorily immune from suit regarding the investigation and licensing of the foster parents’ home but reversing the grant of summary judgment on the issues of whether MDHS’s failure to report allegations of abuse and MDHS’s failure to conduct required visits were the proximate cause of continued abuse.
(8-2: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes)

Other Orders

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (denying rehearing)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 29, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals returned from Thanksgiving break with five opinions. Two cases are medical malpractice cases (one an appeal of summary judgment for lack of expert testimony and the other an appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration). Two are criminal cases, and the other case is a custody case with cross motions for modification and a motion for contempt.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00908-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree, deliberate design murder, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a detective to exclude testimony about other investigations and noting that the Confrontation Clause does not open the door to irrelevant testimony on cross-examination.
(10-0)

Mixon v. Berry, 2021-CA-00494-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a doctor in a med mal case for lack of medical expert testimony, holding that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to produce sworn expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, breach, and proximate cause, and that the trial court did not err in not granting a 56(f) continuance that was not requested or in denying the motion for reconsideration.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is some useful black-letter law from this opinion:

Turnage v. State, 2021-KA-01229-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of a high school teacher of two counts of sexual battery of a student, holding that there were no issues warranting reversal after reviewing appellate counsel’s Lindsey brief and independently reviewing the record.
(10-0)

Lamy v. Lamy, 2021-CA-00770-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s rulings on competing complaints for modification and a motion for contempt, holding that the chancellor did not err in admitting evidence used by the GAL and attached to her report, did not err in classifying one agreed custody order as temporary but did err by interpreting that order as awarding sole physical custody to the mother, and did not err in not finding the mother in contempt.
(5-1-4: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in dissent in part without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty, and joined in part by Judge McDonald.)

Note – In response to the motion for contempt, the mother pleaded COVID in her explanation of why she kept the children during the father’s period of custody. The dissent didn’t buy the excuse:

Durant Healthcare, LLC v. Garrette, 2021-CA-00823-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death case, holding that the evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that the resident lacked the mental capacity to sign the nursing home’s arbitration agreement on the date of admission, that the resident’s daughter did not have authority to sign as his agent, and that the proof was sufficiently clear to affirm the trial court’s denial of the facility’s request for arbitration-related discovery.
(7-3: Judge Carlton dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence.)

Other Orders

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 18, 2022

We got five opinions today from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. There are two chancery cases, one dealing with termination of parental rights and another dealing with an appeal from a judgment of divorce, distribution, and child support. There is an appeal of a summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an unsuccessful appeal from a default judgment, and a criminal case challenging the admissibility of witness testimony.

Middlebrook v. Fuller, 2021-CA-00590-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment adjudicating paternity and terminating parental rights, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not err in making that determination contrary to the GAL’s recommendation.
(9-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion.)

Hill v. Central Sunbelt Federal Credit Union, 2021-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall case, holding that rainwater on a porch did not constitute a dangerous condition where it was actively raining, surveillance video showed that water was not pudding or accumulating on the porch, and there was no evidence of other falls.
(7-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, holding that the inadvertence by the defendant’s registered agent was not a legitimate explanation justifying the default and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant had not presented a sufficient colorable defense.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that a witness’s testimony that she saw the defendant with a firearm weeks before the incident was properly admitted and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on appeal from the chancery court’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the appellant waived her right to challenge the merits of her divorce because she failed to appear at the hearing on the merits, that she waived that issue of distribution of marital assets by failing to cite legal authority to support her claims on appeal, but reversing and remanding for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Ferguson and to issue written findings concerning the reasonableness of the amount of child support.
(8-2: Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee -“If there is ever a case for waiver, this is it.”)

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (denying rehearing)
Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

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

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 20, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and only one was PCR! There are three criminal cases (one of which reversed a conviction as to one count on a jury instruction issue). There are two MTCA cases (one reversing summary judgment in a med mal case and one reversing a bench trial judgment finding police-protection immunity), two divorce cases, and an involuntary commitment case.

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a conviction for burglary and automobile theft, holding that the conviction of burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence but reversing the conviction for auto theft because the jury was not properly instructed as to the value of the stolen vehicle. The case was remanded for retrial on the auto theft count.
(10-0)

Brock v. State, 2021-KA-00739-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of methamphetamine, holding that even if the defendant could prove that her counsel was ineffective she had not proven that but for such professional errors the result would have been different.
(10-0)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying husband’s amended complaint for divorce, holding that the chancellor did not commit clear error in determining that the husband had failed to prove the elements for a divorce based on adultery or irreconcilable differences.
(10-0)

W.C. v. J.C., 2021-CA-00237-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming chancellor’s decision setting aside an agreed order of involuntary commitment and dismissing the action after treatment was completed, holding (1) the agreed order was properly dismissed because the motion to set aside was not untimely, (2) the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the terms of the order had been substantively complied with, (3) evidence from an professional organization monitoring the treatment for professional licensure was admissible, (4) the chancellor did not err in ruling that the petitioner had no standing to object to the motion to set aside the agreed order, and (5) there was no ground for the chancellor to convene a hearing to “protect the interests of the minor children.”
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00915-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove an exception to the statute of limitations, that the sentence was not illegal, and that the indictment was not defective.
(8-2: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

German v. State, 2021-KA-00933-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court’s finding that the defendant was sane when the crime was committed was supported by substantial evidence and the jury’s finding was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the defendant waived issues related to the reliability of a medical expert’s testimony by failing to object at trial.
(9-0: Judge Westbrooks did not participate.)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting the wife divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support that finding (read the facts for yourself if you have doubts), that the subject matter of wife’s expert’s opinions was adequately disclosed and was not even a basis for the chancellor’s decision, and the husband’s claim for separate maintenance was moot since the divorce was affirmed.
(10-0)

St. Andrie v. Singing River Health System, 2021-CA-00042-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s independent negligence claim against the hospital on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the hospital failed to protect the plaintiff from the doctor’s negligence arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the doctor’s negligence and therefore the independent negligence claims against the hospital related back to the date of the original complaint that asserted an independent negligence claim against the doctor and a vicarious liability claim against the hospital.
(7-2-0: Judge Greenlee concurred in result only, joined by Judge Emfinger and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding after a bench trial that the City was protected by police-protection immunity after an officer’s vehicle crossed an intersection against a red light and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle while the officer was responding to an emergency, holding that the facts of this case met the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for finding reckless disregard and that the officer acted with conscious indifference to the safety of the public and the certain parts of the police chief’s testimony were not credible.
( 5-4: Judge Lawrence dissented, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger; Judge Greenlee did not participate.)

NOTE– The Court of Appeals declined the appellant’s invitation to adopt a “reckless disregard per se” rule and maintained the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Other Orders

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (denying rehearing)
Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 11, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three unanimous opinions today. The lone civil case is an interlocutory appeal of a slip-and-fall case. The other two are criminal cases, one affirmed a conviction and the other reversed a conviction based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

Byram Cafe Group, LLC v. Tucker, 2021-IA-00723-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the record including the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony did not support their claim that the defendant created a dangerous condition or that the defendant’s negligence caused the fall.
(9-0)

Garrett v. State, 2021-KA-00754-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of burglary of a hotel room, holding that the defendant did not meet his burden on appeal of showing that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence or that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming evidence.
(9-0)

Green v. State, 2021-KA-00617-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing convictions of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and burglary of a dwelling, holding that the circuit court erred by admitting evidence that the defendant possessed the victim’s car keys (the “linchpin evidence” supporting the convictions) that was wholly derived from the defendant’s statement that the circuit court had excluded because it was improperly induced.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Clark v. State, 2019-DP-00689-SCT (rehearing denied)

Durrant Inc. v. Lee County, Mississippi, 2019-CT-01826-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 2, 2022

In five opinions handed down today, the Mississippi Court of Appeals tackled implied trusts, trespass to timber, hearsay exceptions, and more.

Bays v. State, 2021-KA-00244-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of one count of sexual battery by a person in a position of trust or authority, holding that it was error to admit testimony containing a hearsay statement by the 12-year-old victim under the 801(d)(1)(C) statement of identification hearsay exception but that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the guilty verdict and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely request to submit evidence of another perpetrator or in denying the defendant’s request to re-call the victim.
(9-1-0: no separate opinion)

Ainsworth v. Plunk, 2021-CA-00488-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s order requiring a father to transfer title of real property back to his two daughters, holding that the chancery court properly applied the remedy of an implied trust under the peculiar facts of this case where (1) the father deeded land to his daughters and reserved a life estate for himself prior to his upcoming marriage in case the marriage ended in divorce, which it did, (2) the father then told the daughters to deed the land back to him and he would execute a new deed where the daughters would be tenants in common with full rights to devise their half interest, (3) the daughters quitclaimed their interest back to the father, (4) and the father then said he would only deed back the land if one of the daughters gave up an African-American baby she had adopted.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

NOTE – In addition to its startling facts that would make a compelling movie, this opinion contains a helpful discussion of constructive trusts and resulting trusts, and the differences between the two that would not necessarily make a compelling movie.

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a wrongful death action against an employer stemming from a fatal collision involving its employee, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence because the employee was driving home from a week at a remote job site in a personal vehicle when the accident occurred and thus was not in the course and scope of his employment.
(10-0)

NOTES – The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in declining to apply the workers’ comp “traveling employee doctrine” outside of the workers’ comp arena. Additionally, the Court of Appeals dropped this handy paragraph to cite when the opposing party’s argument relies on out-of-state authorities:

(Please disregard this if I am ever the opposing party citing out-of-state authorities.)

Nalls v. State, 2021-KA-00592-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for JNOV because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and then rejecting several arguments made in the defendant’s additional, pro se brief.
(10-0)

Green v. Poirrier Properties, L.L.C., 2021-CP-00704-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a timber-trespass case, holding that the chancellor’s finding that the defendant’s removal of timber constituted a willful act and the chancellor’s award of damages were supported by substantial evidence.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

Other Orders

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (denying rehearing)

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (denying rehearing)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of July 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today after its two-week break. This eclectic array of cases covers a refused jury instructions on the right to stand your ground, medical malpractice, an election contest, a real property purchase, and a request by the AG to be heard on a nonexistent request for litigation expenses.

Williams v. State, 2021-KA-00336-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Self Defense)
Reversing manslaughter conviction in a case where the defendant killed her father by stabbing him during an altercation he initiated, holding that the trial court erroneously refused the defendant’s proposed jury instructions related to her right to stand her ground.
(9-0)

NOTE – Instructions that the defendant had a right to defend herself were held insufficient. Here are the two instructions that the trial court erred by refusing:

Taylor v. Premier Women’s Health, PLLC, 2021-CA-00493-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming judgment for the defendants following a unanimous jury verdict for the defendants in a med mal case, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant challenges for cause of jurors who were patients of the defendant doctor and did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for JNOV that sought a finding that there was a breach of the standard of care.
(8-0: Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Simmons v. Town of Goodman, 2021-EC-00563-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming trial court’s decision upholding the municipal election commission’s finding that the plaintiff did not qualify to run for mayor, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he was domiciled in Goodman for the amount of time statutorily required to run for mayor.
(9-0)

SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant/seller of real property and its title insurance carrier, holding that the plaintiff’s purchase of real property was valid and enforceable because ratification of the purchase by the county board of supervisors was not required.
(5-1-3: Justice King concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Maxwell.)

Garcia v. State, 2021-IA-00632-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Vacating the trial court’s order granting the Attorney General’s “Motion for Notice of and an Opportunity to Be Heard on Requests for Litigation Expenses,” holding that the AG’s request was not only premature, but inapplicable because the defendant was represented by attorneys working for the Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel who are employed by the state and do not receive compensation or expenses for representing the defendant.
(9-0)

Hand Down List