Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs
Bradley Dobbs filed a complaint against Dollar General Corporation on November 21, 2022, alleging that on November 13, 2020, he was falsely accused of shoplifting by the store manager, Devan Callahan, in front of other customers and his granddaughter. Dobbs claimed that this false accusation caused him embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress, leading to medical treatment for anxiety, stress, and depression. He sought $74,000 in damages for the wrongful, negligent, and malicious infliction of emotional and mental distress by Dollar General's employee.The Pike County County Court initially granted Dollar General's motion to dismiss due to Dobbs's failure to timely respond. However, the court set aside this judgment after Dobbs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for an extension of time to respond. After a hearing, the trial court found that the three-year statute of limitations for negligence applied and denied Dollar General's motion to dismiss. Dollar General then petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted, along with a motion to stay the trial court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and determined that Dobbs's claim was essentially one of defamation, specifically slander, rather than negligence. The court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation applied, as the substance of Dobbs's claim was that Dollar General falsely accused him of shoplifting in the presence of others. Since Dobbs filed his complaint more than one year after the incident, the court found the claim to be time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment in favor of Dollar General, dismissing Dobbs's complaint. View "Dollar General Corporation v. Dobbs" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure, Personal Injury
Gavin v. Evers
The incumbent candidate, Vern Gavin, lost the election to challenger Wanda Evers. Gavin filed a petition for judicial review in the Hinds County Circuit Court, claiming Evers was an unqualified elector due to her residency outside the district and citing several voting irregularities. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Gavin's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to his appeal.The Hinds County Circuit Court initially reviewed the case. Gavin challenged Evers's residency, noting her voting address was transferred outside the district and back within it, and she claimed a homestead exemption at a Jackson address. The Hinds County Executive Committee certified Evers as a candidate despite Gavin's challenge. Evers defeated Gavin in the runoff election. Gavin filed a contest of the election and a petition for judicial review, requesting a special election due to alleged irregularities and disputing Evers's residency qualification. The circuit court granted summary judgment on the election irregularities and dismissed the residency claim, finding Evers met the two-year residency requirement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's rulings, finding no error. The court held that Gavin received proper notice of the summary judgment motion and that the circuit court did not err in considering both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. The court also upheld the exclusion of certain affidavits as hearsay and irrelevant. The court found that Gavin failed to present evidence of election irregularities affecting the outcome and that Evers met the residency requirement. The court also affirmed the denial of Gavin's motion for reconsideration, finding the new evidence presented was cumulative and for impeachment purposes only. View "Gavin v. Evers" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure, Election Law
Unruh v. Johnson
Jessica Johnson filed a negligence action against Evan Unruh one day before the three-year statute of limitations expired. Johnson attempted to serve Unruh 121 days after filing the complaint and simultaneously filed a motion for an enlargement of time to serve him, which the trial court granted. Unruh filed two motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process, both of which were denied by the trial court. Unruh then petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted.The Hinds County Circuit Court initially denied Unruh's motions to dismiss, finding that Johnson's motion for an enlargement of time was timely and that her subsequent service attempts were valid. The trial court concluded that Johnson's service on August 13, 2021, was within the extended time frame granted by the court.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and agreed with Unruh that the trial court erred in granting Johnson's motion for an enlargement of time. The court found that Johnson failed to show good cause for her delay in serving Unruh within the 120-day period required by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). The court noted that Johnson did not attempt to serve Unruh until after the 120-day deadline had expired and did not provide specific details or evidence of attempts to serve him within the initial period.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the statute of limitations for Johnson's negligence claim had expired, as she failed to properly serve Unruh within the required time frame. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered a judgment dismissing Johnson's negligence claim with prejudice. View "Unruh v. Johnson" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure
Housing Authority of The City of Yazoo City v. Billings
Alpresteon Billings was hired as the executive director of the Housing Authority of Yazoo City, Mississippi, with an anticipated five-year contract and a starting salary of $65,000. However, the terms of this contract were not recorded in the Housing Authority’s board minutes. Billings was terminated from her position on February 20, 2019, and subsequently sued the Housing Authority for breach of contract, among other claims.The Yazoo County Circuit Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the commissioners were immune under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act and dismissed the claims against them. However, the court denied summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim against the Housing Authority, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and applied the rule that public boards can only act through their minutes, which must contain enough terms and conditions of a contract to determine the liabilities and obligations of the parties without resorting to other evidence. The court found that the Housing Authority’s minutes did not contain any terms of Billings’s alleged employment contract, such as her name, salary, or contract duration. Therefore, Billings’s breach-of-contract claim failed as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim and rendered judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. View "Housing Authority of The City of Yazoo City v. Billings" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Contracts, Government & Administrative Law
Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc.
Stewart Dubose took over Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. from his father, John Dubose Sr., and sought to increase the company's cash flow by engaging Commercial Resources, Inc. for an accounts receivable line of credit. Stewart personally guaranteed the debt. Commercial Resources advanced over two million dollars to Radco, but payments ceased in 2015. John Dubose later took control of Radco and began liquidating its assets. Stewart and John settled a separate dispute, agreeing to sell Radco to Dynasty Energy Services, LLC, which assumed Radco's liabilities.Commercial Resources filed a lawsuit against Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty for the outstanding debt. Radco and Dynasty counterclaimed, alleging various defenses and claims against Commercial Resources. The case proceeded to trial, where the court granted a directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, finding them liable for the debt. The jury found Dynasty liable for $448,528.60 but awarded zero damages against Radco and Stewart. The trial court later amended the judgment to hold Radco, Stewart, and Dynasty jointly liable for the debt.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court found no error in the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Radco and Dynasty's affirmative defenses due to their delay in pursuing them. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to admit parol evidence, finding the Purchase Agreement ambiguous. The court affirmed the directed verdict against Radco and Stewart, agreeing that Stewart had authority to enter the agreement and that Radco ratified it. The court found no error in the jury instructions or the trial court's denial of post-trial motions. The court also upheld the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to Commercial Resources, finding it appropriate under the contractual provisions. View "Radco Fishing and Rental Tools, Inc. v. Commercial Resources, Inc." on Justia Law
Phillips v. State
Raymond Phillips was convicted of attempted aggravated assault after Ronald Brown reported that Phillips had shot at him in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Brown called 911, and officers arrived to find him distraught. Officer Ianconangelo found a shell casing at the scene, and Officer Truss, who knew Phillips, identified him as the suspect. Phillips was later found driving his truck, which contained a firearm matching the shell casing. Detective Daniels reviewed NOLA camera footage showing Phillips pointing and firing a gun in Brown's direction. The firearm and shell casing were confirmed to match by a forensic examiner.The Forrest County Circuit Court found Phillips guilty of attempted aggravated assault and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Phillips was sentenced to twenty years for the assault and ten years for the weapon charge, to be served concurrently. Phillips filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. Phillips argued that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the admission of body-camera footage and a search warrant affidavit containing Brown's statements. The court found that the statements on the body-camera footage were non-testimonial as they were made during an ongoing emergency. The court also found that the admission of the search warrant affidavit, which included comments on Phillips's post-Miranda silence, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence against him. Phillips's claims of cumulative error and ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding Phillips's conviction. View "Phillips v. State" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
R.K. Metals, LLC v. E & E Co., Inc.
Mark Lovil, the manager of R.K. Metals, LLC, signed a commercial lease with E&E, Co. Inc. in 2015 in his representative capacity. The lease did not include a personal guaranty or arbitration clause. R.K. Metals became delinquent in rent payments, leading E&E to require a new lease in 2018, which included both a personal guaranty and an arbitration clause. Lovil signed the new lease as president of R.K. Metals, but R.K. Metals claimed they were unaware of the new clauses until the final version was delivered.R.K. Metals filed a complaint in the Lee County Circuit Court in May 2020, seeking declaratory relief and asserting breach-of-contract claims. The circuit court found the lease enforceable and ordered arbitration. E&E sought to include Lovil personally in the arbitration, leading to a determination of his status as guarantor. The circuit court granted E&E’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Lovil personally liable as guarantor and a necessary party to arbitration.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Lovil’s signature on the lease, despite his corporate designation, bound him personally as guarantor due to the clear language of the guaranty clause. The court also found that Lovil, as personal guarantor, was bound by the arbitration clause. The court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, noting Lovil’s close legal relationship with R.K. Metals, and concluded that he must participate in arbitration.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that Lovil is personally bound as guarantor and compelled to participate in arbitration. View "R.K. Metals, LLC v. E & E Co., Inc." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts
Jones v. State of Mississippi
In 2012, the victim's mother rekindled a relationship with Cayce William Jones and moved into his house with her two children. After moving in, Jones sexually battered the victim. A grand jury indicted Jones on one count of sexual battery and one count of fondling. A Monroe County jury convicted Jones on both counts.Jones appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to file post-trial motions. The Monroe County Circuit Court handled the initial trial and conviction.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. Jones contended that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not filing a motion for a new trial. The court noted that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are sometimes better suited for post-conviction relief proceedings but can be addressed on direct appeal if the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness or if the parties stipulate that the record is adequate. The court found that the record showed Jones's claim was without merit and addressed it on direct appeal.The court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard, which requires showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defense. Jones failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that a motion for a new trial would have succeeded. The court noted that the evidence against Jones, including the victim's testimony and expert testimony, countered his arguments. The court concluded that the trial involved conflicting testimony, which the jury properly resolved.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Jones's conviction and sentence, finding that he did not show that his counsel's decision not to file a motion for a new trial prejudiced his defense. View "Jones v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
Minor v. State of Mississippi
Zachary Minor was charged with possession of marijuana and trafficking of THC after a package containing these substances was delivered to a residence in Natchez, Mississippi. Agents from the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics observed the delivery and arrested Mario Hartwell, who retrieved the package. Minor was found in the truck with Hartwell, and evidence from Minor's phone linked him to the package. A grand jury indicted Minor and Hartwell on multiple counts, and Minor's trial was severed from Hartwell's.The Adams County Circuit Court conducted a jury trial, during which the State made several errors, including commenting on Minor's right to remain silent, eliciting inflammatory testimony about the effects of edibles on children, and introducing hearsay evidence from Hartwell. The jury found Minor guilty of possession with intent to distribute and trafficking THC. Minor's motions for a mistrial and a new trial were denied, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten and twenty years.The Court of Appeals affirmed Minor's conviction, finding that the errors were either waived or harmless. However, a dissenting opinion argued that the cumulative effect of the errors warranted a new trial. Minor then petitioned for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived Minor of a fair trial. The court held that the State's actions, including commenting on Minor's right to remain silent, eliciting prejudicial testimony, and introducing inadmissible hearsay, constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial. View "Minor v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Criminal Law
Webster v. University of Mississippi Medical Center Grenada
Shanta Webster filed a complaint in the Grenada County Circuit Court against the University of Mississippi Medical Center-Grenada (UMMC-Grenada) and Drs. Aimee Watts and Kimberly Farmer, alleging medical negligence in the performance of a hysterectomy and post-operative care. Webster served the complaint to Dr. Watts, Dr. Farmer, and Dodie McElmurry, the CEO of UMMC-Grenada. The defendants requested an extension to answer the complaint and later claimed immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Webster argued that service of process was proper under Rule 4(d)(8) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.The Grenada County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that service of process was improper because it was not made to the Attorney General as required by Rule 4(d)(5) for state institutions. Webster appealed the dismissal, maintaining that UMMC-Grenada is a community hospital and that service on the CEO was sufficient.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo and upheld the trial court's decision. The court found that UMMC-Grenada is not a separate entity but a part of UMMC, a state institution. Therefore, service of process should have been made to the Attorney General under Rule 4(d)(5). Webster failed to serve the Attorney General within the 120-day period required by Rule 4(h), rendering the service invalid. Additionally, the court noted that Drs. Watts and Farmer, acting within the scope of their employment, were immune from personal liability under the MTCA.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal, concluding that proper service of process was not effected, and the individual defendants were immune from liability. View "Webster v. University of Mississippi Medical Center Grenada" on Justia Law