Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A former county court judge in Leflore County, Mississippi, sought to run for county court judge in the general election scheduled for November 3, 2026. After filing his qualifying statement of intent, the current judge filed a petition with the Leflore County Election Commission, asserting that the former judge did not meet the residency requirements for candidacy because he had sold his Leflore County home and moved to Grenada County in 2023. The petition argued that the candidate had not resided in Leflore County for the required two years before the qualifying date or before the election date.The Leflore County Election Commission held a hearing, during which the candidate challenged the commission’s jurisdiction to decide candidate qualifications for county court judge. The commission consulted the secretary of state’s office, which indicated the commission had authority to review qualifications under relevant statutes. The commission then voted to disqualify the candidate, removing his name from the ballot. The candidate appealed to the Circuit Court of Leflore County. The circuit court ruled that the election commission did not have jurisdiction to determine the qualifications of a county court judge candidate and ordered the candidate’s name be placed back on the ballot. In the alternative, the circuit court found that the commission had applied the wrong residency standard.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment that the election commission lacked statutory authority to rule on the qualifications of candidates for county court judge, as the relevant statutes specifically excluded such offices from the commission’s jurisdiction. The court vacated as moot the remaining parts of the circuit court’s judgment, found the commission’s exclusion of the candidate improper, and directed that the candidate’s name be returned to the ballot. View "In Re: Petition to Disqualify Adams" on Justia Law

The case concerns a closely contested Democratic primary election for alderman of Ward 3 in Senatobia, Mississippi, in which Allen Tanksley defeated Michael Cathey by a single vote. Cathey alleged several irregularities in the handling of absentee ballots, including that some were improperly counted or excluded, that absentee ballots were not properly distinguished from regular ballots, that the ballot box was not properly secured, and that he was denied timely access to examine the ballot box and related materials.Following the election, the Tate County Democratic Executive Committee initially determined that irregularities warranted a new election, but the Chancery Court of Tate County set aside this determination and issued an injunction. Cathey then filed a formal election contest in the Circuit Court of Tate County, alleging procedural and substantive errors affecting the election’s outcome. After a hearing, the circuit court found that Cathey had not met his burden of proof on any claim. The court upheld the validity of a written agreement giving authority over the ballot box to the city clerk, found Cathey was not denied access to relevant materials, and concluded that there was no evidence of fraud or improper ballot tampering. The circuit court declared Tanksley the winner.Cathey appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Supreme Court found that the city clerk’s breaking of the ballot box seal, in violation of Mississippi Code Section 23-15-911, constituted a “gross violation” of mandatory election law, creating a loss of confidence in the election’s integrity, especially given the unexplained counting of a contested absentee ballot. The Court held that, even absent proof of fraud, the breach of ballot box security warranted a special election. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court’s judgment and ordered a new special election for the office. View "Cathey v. Tanksley" on Justia Law

A healthcare technology company formed in 2016 included the appellant as a founding member. The company’s operating agreement was modified several times, and in August 2020, the appellant assigned his membership interest to another member and a separate entity, ceasing to receive further distributions. Two years later, the appellant, through counsel, alleged that the assignment was executed under duress and fraud, and that there were improprieties with the amended operating agreements. In February 2024, the appellant, joined initially by another individual, filed suit against several members and the company, alleging negligent misrepresentation, securities violations, interference with contractual relations, conspiracy, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.The Harrison County Circuit Court, upon motion from the defendants, granted summary judgment, determining that all of the appellant’s claims were barred by Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations. The court held that the appellant’s injury accrued at the time of the assignment in August 2020, and that the complaint filed in February 2024 was untimely. Arguments regarding forgery of an earlier operating agreement were found irrelevant to the assignment. Subsequent efforts by the appellant to supplement the appellate record with new evidence were denied after a limited remand from the Supreme Court of Mississippi.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only the appellant’s arguments concerning the denial of record supplementation, as he failed to challenge the grant of summary judgment in his primary brief. The Court held that issues not raised in the appellant’s initial brief are waived, and the pro se status of the appellant did not excuse this failure. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the request to supplement the record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Johnson v. Nichols" on Justia Law

A police officer initiated a nighttime traffic stop in Madison, Mississippi, after noticing a vehicle with an unauthorized “PRIV4T3” license plate instead of a state-issued tag. The driver, Elizabeth Bozard, refused to provide identification and disregarded officers’ instructions not to leave the scene. She fled, leading multiple officers on a chase north and south on I-55, during which she ran a red light, passed vehicles on the shoulder, struck a police car, and drove over several spike strips before finally stopping. Bozard exited her vehicle and was arrested after officers subdued her. She was indicted for felony evasion and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer.The case was tried before the Madison County Circuit Court, where Bozard testified in her own defense and the prosecution presented testimony from several officers, along with photographs and videos documenting the events. The jury acquitted Bozard of aggravated assault but convicted her of felony evasion. The trial court sentenced her to ten years in prison for the felony evasion conviction. Bozard appealed, raising only the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for her felony evasion conviction.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case using a de novo standard for sufficiency of the evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the Court found that Bozard’s conduct—fleeing a traffic stop, leading officers on a prolonged chase, running a red light, passing vehicles unsafely, and striking a police car—demonstrated reckless or willful disregard for the safety of persons or property and extreme indifference to human life under Mississippi Code Section 97-9-72(2). The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the felony evasion conviction and affirmed both the conviction and sentence. View "Bozard v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Daryl Moore was employed by the Coahoma County School District Board as an at-will assistant coach for the high school boys’ basketball team during the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. He was paid $1,500 per year for his assistant coaching duties. Moore claimed that, at the request of the athletic director, he also performed the duties of the head coach for the junior-high boys’ basketball team but was never compensated for those additional responsibilities. He asserted that he was entitled to $5,000 for serving as the junior-high head coach over two years and brought suit against the Board for unjust enrichment and underpayment.The County Court of Coahoma County reviewed Moore’s claims after he filed suit for unpaid compensation. The Board moved for summary judgment, relying on Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that any binding contract with a public board be reflected in the board’s official minutes. The court denied summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remained regarding Moore’s coaching roles and compensation, and granted Moore additional time for discovery. The Board appealed, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi granted interlocutory review under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that Moore’s claims were barred by the minutes rule because there was no evidence in the Board’s minutes of any agreement to pay Moore as head coach or to increase his compensation. The Court found that, since the Board’s minutes did not reflect approval of additional pay for head-coaching duties, Moore could not recover under theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court reversed the county court’s decision and rendered summary judgment in favor of the Board. View "Coahoma County School District Board of Education v. Moore" on Justia Law

The case centers on the death of a two-year-old child, Hayden, who lived with his mother, Hailey, and her husband, Joseph. The family struggled financially, and Joseph was often home caring for Hayden while Hailey worked. On the morning of December 27, 2021, Hayden died after being repeatedly struck by Joseph and subsequently smothered by Hailey, according to Hailey’s testimony. Medical evidence indicated Hayden suffered extensive recent and past injuries consistent with ongoing physical abuse. Both Joseph and Hailey were indicted for capital murder. Hailey pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received a life sentence, while Joseph pleaded not guilty and went to trial.The case was first tried in the Harrison County Circuit Court, Second Judicial District. A jury found Joseph guilty of capital murder and, after a penalty phase, unanimously sentenced him to death, finding he had attempted to kill Hayden and that the murder was committed during felonious child abuse and was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Joseph’s post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed multiple claims of error, including the admission of expert and lay testimony, the exclusion of certain character evidence, the jury instructions regarding aggravating circumstances, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the proportionality and constitutionality of the death sentence. The Court applied heightened scrutiny due to the death penalty. It held that there was no reversible error in the admission of testimony, the aggravating circumstances were properly found, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings. The Court affirmed Joseph’s conviction and death sentence, finding neither cumulative error nor constitutional infirmity. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were preserved for possible post-conviction relief but were not resolved on direct appeal. View "Heard v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A woman experienced a difficult third pregnancy, complicated by multiple medical issues that warranted an early, medically induced labor. Before delivery, she signed a consent form authorizing her obstetrician to perform a vaginal delivery with possible laceration/episiotomy repairs and possible cesarean section. During labor, as the infant was crowning, she pleaded with her doctor not to perform an episiotomy, but the procedure was carried out. She later required reconstructive surgery due to complications from the episiotomy.She initiated legal action in the Hinds County Circuit Court against her obstetrician, the medical group, and other entities, alleging lack of informed consent and battery related to the episiotomy, along with other claims against additional defendants. Over time, the trial court issued a series of orders dismissing various claims and defendants, culminating in summary judgment for the obstetrician on the informed consent and battery claims, primarily due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide expert medical testimony. The plaintiff argued that expert testimony was unnecessary because she had withdrawn consent during labor, but the court disagreed.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that while a medical procedure performed without consent may constitute battery and not require expert testimony, this scenario involved consent given prior to delivery and alleged withdrawal during labor. In such cases, it is necessary to prove that stopping the procedure was medically feasible and would not cause harm, which requires expert testimony. The Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff’s lack of expert evidence prevented her claims from proceeding, and upheld the trial court’s denial of reconsideration. View "Brown v. Davey-Sullivan" on Justia Law

A patient sought treatment at a state medical center for vision issues and was diagnosed with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. She initially chose medication over surgery but later agreed to undergo an optic-nerve sheath fenestration. Following continued vision decline, she received a shunt placement. Shortly after this procedure, she and her mother discussed concerns about her treatment, expressing suspicions that something had gone wrong and that she should seek care elsewhere. The patient continued follow-up visits at the center, but months later obtained a second medical opinion, which suggested prior care had been incorrect and provided an alternative diagnosis.The patient filed a notice of claim against the medical center more than a year after her suspicions of negligence but within a year of receiving the second opinion. She then filed suit for medical negligence. The University of Mississippi Medical Center moved for summary judgment in the Hinds County Circuit Court, arguing the claim was time barred under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act’s one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, finding a genuine issue as to when the patient discovered the alleged negligence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. It held that the statute of limitations began running when the patient first suspected negligent care, as shown by her own statements and those of her mother shortly after the shunt procedure, not when she received the second opinion. The court found no genuine issue of material fact that her suspicions triggered the limitations period, making her claim time barred. The court reversed the trial court’s decision and rendered summary judgment in favor of the medical center. View "University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Carter" on Justia Law

Mary Margaret Upchurch, who suffered from chronic back pain, underwent multiple surgeries involving spinal cord stimulators and pain pumps. In 2016, after moving to Mississippi, she had a pain pump replaced by Dr. Adam Lewis, a neurosurgeon at Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic. During surgery, Dr. Lewis attempted to replace the battery of her spinal cord stimulator with one from a different manufacturer, but encountered issues with the compatibility of the leads. This led to additional procedures, including a laminectomy and the eventual replacement of the stimulator, after which Mary experienced severe neurological complications, including paralysis. The Upchurches alleged that Dr. Lewis failed to properly prepare for surgery, did not obtain informed consent, and failed to communicate adequately with hospital staff.The case was tried in the Rankin County Circuit Court, where the jury found in favor of Dr. Lewis and Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic, concluding there was no negligence in Dr. Lewis’s care. The circuit court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and denied the Upchurches’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The Upchurches appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s judgment, finding insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict and remanding the case for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the Upchurches’ failure to object to Dr. Lewis’s testimony at trial constituted waiver, and that his unobjected-to testimony should have been considered as evidence. The Court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Dr. Lewis and Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic. Additionally, the Court affirmed the circuit court’s order assessing appellate record costs against Dr. Lewis and the Clinic. View "Upchurch v. Lewis" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over real property in Harrison County, Mississippi, after the land was sold to the state for unpaid taxes in August 2017 and subsequently conveyed to Jermille Johnson via forfeited tax land patents in 2021. Elizabeth Cleveland, who had lived on the property since the 1980s, filed a complaint in the Harrison County Chancery Court seeking to quiet title through adverse possession and to void the tax sale due to lack of proper notice. Cleveland asserted that she had acquired ownership by adverse possession over more than twenty years.The Harrison County Chancery Court found that Cleveland had standing to challenge the tax sale and land patents, and determined the sale was void because the required notice had not been given. The chancellor cancelled the land patents and returned the property to the county. Johnson appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court’s judgment, holding that Cleveland lacked standing to challenge the tax sale and that Mississippi Code Section 29-1-21 barred such claims once land was struck off to the state. The appellate court remanded the case for consideration of Johnson’s counterclaim to quiet title.On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only the issue of Cleveland’s standing. The Court held that Cleveland has standing to challenge the tax sale because her adverse possession claim, if true, would have vested title in her by operation of law. Additionally, the unique facts of the case demonstrated an adverse impact sufficient to confer standing, as Cleveland faced losing her home. The Court rejected Johnson’s statutory argument, holding that other statutes permit challenges to tax sales. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Harrison County Chancery Court. View "Johnson v. Cleveland" on Justia Law