Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A resident of Madison County, Mississippi, received medical treatment at a hospital in Hinds County and later filed a claim with her health insurer, a foreign corporation doing business in the state. The insurer partially paid the claim but later, through its third-party administrator, asserted the hospital was out of network before eventually admitting it was in network. Despite repeated efforts by the insured to resolve the dispute, the insurer failed to pay the remaining balance or provide an explanation, ultimately stating the claim was untimely. The insured then sued the insurer and the administrator in Hinds County, seeking damages for breach of contract and related claims.The Circuit Court of Hinds County denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue to Madison County. Only the insurer sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal from this order. The administrator did not join the appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case, applying de novo review to the interpretation of the venue statute and abuse of discretion to the trial court’s venue ruling. The Court held that, under Mississippi Code Section 11-11-3(1)(a)(i), venue is proper where a substantial act or omission by the defendant caused the injury for which the plaintiff seeks redress. The Court found that the medical treatment in Hinds County was not a substantial event caused by the insurer that resulted in the alleged injury; rather, the alleged injury arose from the insurer’s acts or omissions related to the insurance contract, which were not tied to Hinds County. The Court overruled prior precedent to the extent it conflicted with this interpretation and concluded that venue was proper in Madison County. The judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in Madison County. View "National Health Insurance Company v. Lever" on Justia Law

Kyle Dew and Mossy Woods & Waters LLC were sued by Greenwood Leflore Consolidated School District and Mossy Brake Hunting Club, who claimed exclusive ownership of a portion of Mossy Lake located on sixteenth section land in Leflore County, Mississippi. The School District leases this section of the lake to the hunting club for recreational purposes and alleged that Dew trespassed on its property while on Mossy Lake. Dew countered that Mossy Lake is a public waterbody, and as a littoral landowner, he had the right to use the lake. He also argued that the public waters trust should take precedence over the sixteenth section trust.The Leflore County Chancery Court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and declaratory judgment. After a hearing and site visit, the chancery court found that the sixteenth section trust was superior to the public waters trust, quieted title to the relevant portion of Mossy Lake in favor of the School District and the hunting club, and enjoined Dew from using that section of the lake. The court also found Dew had not established adverse possession or a prescriptive right and rejected his claims for injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that Mossy Lake, being navigable and an oxbow lake, is part of the public waters trust and never accrued to the sixteenth section land. The Court found that the School District does not have the right to exclude citizens who legally access the waters of Mossy Lake. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the judgment of the Leflore County Chancery Court on all issues and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Dew v. Greenwood Leflore Consolidated School District" on Justia Law

A commercial truck driver was stopped by police in Rankin County, Mississippi, for speeding and following too closely. During the stop, the officer noticed the driver was using paper logs instead of the electronic logs typically required for commercial vehicles, and observed inconsistencies in the logs. The driver, after initial denials, admitted to having over $100,000 in the vehicle, later specifying it was $225,000, which he claimed was for truck repairs or his life savings. The officer obtained consent to search the vehicle and found the cash packaged in multiple envelopes. Further investigation linked phone numbers provided by the driver to ongoing federal drug-trafficking investigations, and a trained narcotics dog showed interest in the cash. The State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings, alleging the money was connected to illegal drug activity.The Circuit Court of Rankin County held a bench trial, heard testimony from law enforcement and an expert in drug trafficking, and issued an order of forfeiture, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the cash was connected to drug trafficking. The driver appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the trial court, concluding the State had not met its burden of proof under the relevant forfeiture statute.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. Applying the substantial evidence/clearly erroneous standard, the court found that the trial court’s findings were supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the manner of cash packaging, travel patterns, phone records, and the narcotics dog’s alert. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that the State had met its burden to show the currency was more likely than not connected to illegal drug activity and thus subject to forfeiture. View "Chung v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Elliott Land Developments LLC sought to rezone approximately 31.8 acres of property owned by Michael and Winona Aguzin in Jackson County, Mississippi, from agricultural (A-1) to single-family residential (R-1) in order to develop a subdivision. The Jackson County Planning Commission held a hearing, where both supporters and opponents presented evidence and arguments. Elliott Land relied on a Land Use Report showing recent development, improved infrastructure, and a purported public need for more housing. Several residents opposed the rezoning, citing concerns about drainage, traffic, and a desire to maintain the rural character of the area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning.An adjacent property owner, Marisa Lamey, appealed the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Jackson County Board of Supervisors. Elliott Land challenged the sufficiency and timeliness of Lamey’s notice of appeal, but the Board chose to hear the appeal. After a hearing with testimony from multiple residents, the Board of Supervisors voted four-to-one to deny the rezoning application, finding insufficient evidence of a change in the character of the neighborhood or a public need for rezoning. Elliott Land appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, arguing the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the appeal was not properly before the Board. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding it was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the appeal was properly before the Board of Supervisors, that the question of whether Elliott Land met its burden was fairly debatable based on substantial evidence from both sides, and that the Board’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Elliott Land Developments, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Jackson County, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Carlos Jones, Jr. was convicted of attempted aggravated assault after an incident in which he became angry when a neighbor’s visitor honked a car horn, waking him from sleep. Jones confronted his neighbor, Niesha Russell, and after a verbal argument, retrieved a gun from a car, pointed it at Russell, and fired two shots as she fled toward her house. Russell testified that she saw Jones point the gun at her and heard the shots as she ran, though she was not injured. Jones left the scene immediately after the shooting. He later told police that he had fired into the air rather than at Russell.The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, where the State charged Jones with attempted aggravated assault. At trial, the jury heard testimony from Russell and law enforcement. Jones moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence did not show he intended to harm Russell, but the motion was denied. The jury found Jones guilty, and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with three years to serve and two years of supervised probation. After his motion for a new trial was denied, Jones appealed.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the conviction. The court held that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones intended to shoot Russell, based on the circumstantial evidence that he pointed the gun at her and fired. The court also found that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, as the jury was entitled to resolve conflicting testimony regarding Jones’s intent. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Jones v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A patient underwent a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation and endometrial ablation performed by a physician at a women’s clinic. About a week after the procedure, she experienced severe abdominal pain and was hospitalized for sepsis. An exploratory surgery revealed a perforated small bowel, which was surgically repaired. The patient subsequently recovered.The patient filed a medical negligence lawsuit in the Hinds County Circuit Court against the clinic and the physician, attaching the required certificate of expert consultation to her complaint. The defendants moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with an expert affidavit. The plaintiff did not timely file an expert affidavit or testimony in response. On the day before the scheduled summary judgment hearing, she filed a response without any expert affidavit. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion and granted her an additional thirty days to obtain an expert affidavit. After she submitted an expert affidavit and a second hearing was held, the circuit court again denied summary judgment, finding that the competing expert affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment de novo and its grant of additional time for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that, in medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff must produce sworn expert testimony to survive summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide such testimony before the initial hearing and that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting additional time without a specific finding of diligence or good faith. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Lakeland Premier Women's Clinic, PLLC v. Jackson" on Justia Law

A minor child, J.B., was placed in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) in May 2021 and subsequently placed with foster parents, John and Amy Caldwell, in June 2021. The initial permanency plan was reunification with a parent or placement with a relative. In October 2022, J.B.’s maternal great aunt, Wanda Hines, learned of the proceedings and sought placement of J.B. with her and her husband, James Hines, in Georgia. After the youth court terminated the parental rights of J.B.’s biological parents in December 2022, both the foster parents and the relatives sought to adopt J.B.The DeSoto County Chancery Court first granted the foster parents’ petition for adoption, but the relatives intervened and challenged the adoption, arguing that CPS policy and the foster contract required exhaustion of family placement options before adoption by non-relatives. CPS also sought dismissal or a stay, asserting ongoing efforts for relative placement. The chancellor initially issued a temporary order granting the foster parents custody and the relatives visitation, but the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed this order on interlocutory appeal for lack of a hearing and remanded for a full hearing.On remand, the chancery court held a hearing and found that the best interest of the child was the controlling factor, not a preference for relatives. The court determined that J.B. had lived with the Caldwells for most of her life, was thriving in their care, and that placement with them would avoid unnecessary trauma. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court’s decision, holding that the best interest of the child prevails over CPS policy or contractual arguments, and that substantial credible evidence supported the adoption by the foster parents. The court also rejected the relatives’ judicial estoppel argument. View "In the Matter of the Petition for the Adoption of the Minor Child v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

Late one night, a man called police twice, claiming he was being chased, and was found by officers pounding on a homeowner’s door in Beaumont, Mississippi. The man appeared erratic and admitted to drinking. He gave police permission to search his vehicle, which he referred to as “his” car. Inside, officers found a sunglasses case on the dashboard containing a glass pipe and a bag of methamphetamine. While being transported to jail, the man remarked that he “should have gotten rid of that shit before [he] called” the police. Subsequent testing confirmed the substance was methamphetamine, and he was indicted for possession of more than one-tenth gram but less than two grams of a Schedule II controlled substance.The case was tried in the Perry County Circuit Court, where a jury found the defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine. The court sentenced him to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he constructively possessed the methamphetamine and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. Applying the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held that a rational juror could find the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle and knew about the methamphetamine, especially given his statements and behavior. The court distinguished this case from Ferrell v. State, 649 So. 2d 831 (Miss. 1995), finding additional incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "Moody v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

An employee at a dental clinic within a correctional facility alleged that she was sexually assaulted by an inmate while working in her office. The incident occurred when the inmate entered her office, closed the door, and, according to her testimony, physically restrained and sexually assaulted her. The victim immediately reported the incident to her supervisor and underwent a forensic examination, which revealed DNA evidence consistent with the inmate being the primary contributor. The inmate claimed the encounter was consensual and that he and the victim had a prior relationship, but no evidence supported this assertion.The Circuit Court of Rankin County presided over the trial, during which the jury found the inmate guilty of sexual battery. The court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. The defendant filed post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The trial court denied these motions, leading to the present appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case, applying a de novo standard to the sufficiency of the evidence and an abuse-of-discretion standard to the weight of the evidence. The court held that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and supporting forensic findings, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the verdict was not so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to constitute an injustice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction, sentence, and denial of post-trial motions. View "Mayfield v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A married couple with two young children experienced a breakdown in their relationship, leading to separation in 2020. The husband, who lived near his supportive family, filed for divorce and sought primary custody of the children, citing concerns about the wife’s mental health, including her history of depression and suicide attempts. The wife, who lacked a family support network but maintained employment and support from friends, counterclaimed for divorce and also sought custody, alleging the husband’s controlling behavior and alcohol use. Both parties presented conflicting testimony regarding their roles as caregivers and the circumstances leading to their separation.The Choctaw County Chancery Court initially entered a temporary custody order, alternating physical custody every fifteen days. The parties later agreed to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, leaving custody and support to the chancellor. After a trial, the chancellor applied the Albright factors and found that the mental health and moral fitness factors slightly favored the husband, awarding him primary physical custody while granting joint legal custody. The wife moved for a new trial and for the chancellor’s recusal, arguing errors in the Albright analysis and alleging judicial bias, but both motions were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the chancellor’s findings under a deferential standard, asking whether they were supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. The court held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in weighing the mental health and moral fitness factors, nor was there reversible error in the lack of specific findings regarding detrimental impact. The court also found no merit in the claims of judicial bias or error in denying a new trial. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court. View "Edwards v. Edwards" on Justia Law