Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A tenant at an apartment complex sustained a knee injury while attempting to avoid a water puddle on a sidewalk between her apartment building and the parking lot during a rainstorm at night. The sidewalk had a longstanding issue with water, mud, and debris collecting in a depressed section due to a disconnected downspout and sidewalk deterioration. The tenant, who had a history of knee problems, stepped off the sidewalk to avoid the puddle and slipped on a concealed jagged edge, aggravating her knee. She later underwent surgery and filed suit against the apartment management, alleging negligent maintenance of the premises.The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. The plaintiff presented expert testimony from Kenneth Goodrum, who was designated as a premises safety expert. Park Wind, the defendant, objected to Goodrum’s qualifications and methodology, arguing he lacked sufficient experience and that his approach was not reliable under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. The trial court denied these objections, allowed Goodrum to testify as an expert, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant’s post-trial motion to exclude Goodrum’s testimony and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur was denied without analysis.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found that the trial court had abused its discretion by qualifying Goodrum as an expert. The court held that Goodrum did not possess the necessary knowledge, skill, experience, or education in premises safety and that his methodology was not sufficiently scientific or specialized to aid the jury. The Supreme Court determined that this error was prejudicial and not harmless. Accordingly, it reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Park Wind Apartments, LLC v. Mayze" on Justia Law

A man was found inside a residence in Woodville, Mississippi, by a woman who recognized him as someone she had known since childhood. His behavior was described as markedly different and concerning. He was reportedly armed with multiple firearms and made threats toward those present in the house. The woman and others eventually left the residence and alerted law enforcement to his presence and the fact that he was armed. When law enforcement, including two police chiefs, arrived and attempted to apprehend him, the man exited the house and fired two shots in the direction of the officers. One officer initially believed he had been struck, but it was determined he was hit by debris. The man fled and was apprehended approximately a week later.The Circuit Court of Wilkinson County held a jury trial, where the jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault on a law-enforcement officer under Mississippi law. He was sentenced to thirty years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the jury was not properly instructed on the essential elements of the offense and that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence because no physical or forensic evidence linked him to the shooting.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal. It held that the supplemented record showed the jury was properly instructed on all essential elements of aggravated assault on a law-enforcement officer, in accordance with statutory requirements. The court also found that credible testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses supported the verdict, and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Carr v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A subcontractor performed fabrication and machining services for a general contractor on a filtration plant project. The arrangement included a provision that the subcontractor would be paid only after the general contractor received payment from the owner. When payment to the subcontractor ceased due to a dispute between the general contractor and the owner, the subcontractor filed two construction liens against the property to secure payment, attaching multiple invoices to each lien. The liens themselves did not state the date the claim was due, but included invoices bearing various dates.After the subcontractor filed suit to enforce the liens and for other related claims, the owner removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The owner moved to dismiss, arguing that the liens were invalid because they did not “specify the date the claim was due” as required by Mississippi Code Section 85-7-405(1)(b). The district court agreed, finding that neither the liens nor the attached invoices clearly identified the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The subcontractor appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit found no clear controlling Mississippi precedent on whether attaching invoices with dates, but without clear explanation of what those dates represent, satisfies the statutory requirement. It certified the question to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that simply attaching invoices with dates that do not plainly indicate the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied does not satisfy the requirement that an enforceable lien “specify the date the claim was due” under Section 85-7-405(1)(b). The certified question was answered in the negative. View "Cuevas Machine Company, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corporation" on Justia Law

A woman, Emily, had been under a conservatorship granted to her mother in 2012 due to mental incapacity and remained under that conservatorship, which was never formally terminated. Emily became a mother of four children. In early 2023, after concerns about the care and living situation of her youngest child, Zane, the Prentiss County Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) intervened. Zane was removed from Emily's custody and placed in foster care following an emergency order. Emily was given a reunification service plan, but failed to comply with its requirements, including obtaining stable housing and addressing drug use. Over the next two years, Emily struggled with housing, employment, and substance abuse, while Zane remained in foster care and developed a bond with his foster family.The Prentiss County Youth Court adjudicated Zane as a neglected child in April 2023, though Emily’s conservator, Lisa, was not served with process or present at the adjudication. Both Emily and Lisa participated in later proceedings. No appeal was taken from the adjudication or disposition orders. In August 2024, a permanency review led to a plan for Zane's adoption. Subsequently, the Prentiss County Chancery Court heard a petition to terminate parental rights. Carter, the father, voluntarily surrendered his rights. At the termination hearing, Emily argued that the underlying adjudication was void due to lack of service on her conservator, but the chancellor found this objection had been waived due to ongoing participation in the proceedings without timely objection or appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the youth court had personal jurisdiction over Emily and whether the chancellor erred in terminating her parental rights. The court held that any deficiency in service was waived by the parties’ participation and failure to timely object. The court also found that substantial evidence supported termination of Emily’s parental rights under statutory grounds, including desertion and substantial erosion of the parent-child relationship. The judgment of the chancery court was affirmed. View "E.K.W. v. Prentiss County Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

A defendant was indicted as a violent habitual offender for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, shooting into a motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of a firearm or weapon by a convicted felon. After his indictment, the court scheduled his trial. On the day of trial, his counsel requested a mental-health evaluation, resulting in a continuance. The court granted this motion, and the defendant was evaluated by Dr. Montgomery, who found him competent to stand trial. The court held a competency hearing, admitted Dr. Montgomery’s report without objection, and found the defendant competent. Later, the defendant moved for a second mental-health evaluation at county expense, which the State opposed.The Jackson County Circuit Court denied the request for county-funded payment for a second evaluation but allowed the defendant to obtain a second evaluation at his own expense. The court initially denied the defendant’s oral motion for a continuance but later granted a written motion when it was shown that the second evaluation could not be performed before the scheduled trial date. The trial was ultimately rescheduled, allowing the defendant eight additional months before trial. The defendant did not offer the second evaluation into evidence at trial. A jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences as a habitual offender.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance to obtain a second mental-health evaluation. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and did not impede the defendant’s ability to obtain a second evaluation, as a later continuance was granted and the defendant had ample time before trial. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "Howard v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A Mississippi-based furniture company and its principal operated an online “drop shipping” business, selling to customers nationwide. They fulfilled over a thousand orders for Michigan residents, accepting payments and arranging deliveries to Michigan addresses, but beginning in 2020, they kept payments for furniture they never delivered. After numerous complaints, the Michigan Attorney General sued them for violations of Michigan’s consumer protection laws and statutory conversion involving ten Michigan consumers. The defendants did not appear in the Michigan court, asserting that their website’s terms limited legal disputes to Mississippi and that Michigan lacked personal jurisdiction. Default judgments were entered against both defendants, awarding damages, civil fines, and attorneys’ fees.Following the Michigan judgment, the Attorney General enrolled it in the Lowndes County Circuit Court in Mississippi under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The defendants objected, arguing that the Michigan court lacked jurisdiction due to their choice-of-law provision and that the forum-selection clause in their terms of service precluded jurisdiction. The circuit court held that the forum-selection clause was irrelevant to the statutory action and that Michigan law governed its validity, overruling the objections and directing enrollment of the judgment.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal de novo. It held that the Michigan court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they knowingly and repeatedly contracted with Michigan residents, took their money, and arranged deliveries into Michigan, thus purposefully availing themselves of Michigan’s market. The choice-of-law provision in the website’s terms did not negate purposeful availment. The court found that Michigan’s long-arm statutes and due process requirements were satisfied. It also held that the size of the judgment was irrelevant to full faith and credit. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s order enrolling the Michigan judgment. View "AF, LLC v. Nessel" on Justia Law

ACC OP (Oxford, Mississippi), LLC owns a student-housing property in Oxford, Mississippi. For the 2021 and 2022 tax years, the Lafayette County Tax Assessor appraised and the Board of Supervisors approved the property's value at approximately $21.3 million. ACC believed the property was overvalued by $8–9 million and objected in writing to the Board's assessments, submitting documentation as required. Prior to the Board hearing, the Tax Assessor, through her office, requested additional documents via a form referencing Mississippi Code Section 27-1-23 and directed submission to the Assessor’s Office, not the Board. ACC responded to each item, explaining that some requested documents did not exist, and submitted others.The Board denied ACC’s objections, citing ACC’s failure to submit “required documentation” and, for 2021, also referencing ACC’s absence at the Board meeting. ACC appealed both denials to the Lafayette County Circuit Court, which consolidated the appeals. After extensive litigation, the County moved to dismiss the appeals, arguing that ACC’s noncompliance with document requests barred the circuit court’s jurisdiction under Mississippi Code Section 27-35-97. The circuit court denied the motions, finding that Section 27-35-97’s preclusion applies only to a demand from the Board, not the Tax Assessor, and that ACC had complied with the written objection requirement.On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s denial of the County’s motions to dismiss de novo. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Assessor’s document request was an informal request under Section 27-1-23, not a Board demand under Section 27-35-97, and thus carried no penalty for preclusion. The Board itself never made a demand for documents, and ACC satisfied the written objection requirement under Section 27-35-93. The Court affirmed the circuit court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lafayette County Board of Supervisors v. ACC OP" on Justia Law

Two condominium owners installed glass artwork on the terrace wall of their unit in a residential complex governed by a nonprofit association. The association, citing its declaration of restrictive covenants, fined one of the owners for this installation and required removal of the artwork, asserting that prior written consent was required for such exterior modifications. The owners paid the fine under protest and removed the artwork, but then brought suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the association had waived enforcement through long-term inaction and that they had relied on this acquiescence to their detriment.The County Court of Harrison County granted summary judgment to the association, ruling that the declaration was unambiguous, the association was entitled to enforce it, and that waiver did not apply. The court adopted the association’s proposed findings and did not address pending discovery requests or motions to compel. The owners appealed to the Harrison County Chancery Court, arguing that summary judgment was improper prior to completion of discovery, especially given their equitable claims of waiver, estoppel, and laches.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and laches are fact-intensive and generally require full discovery before summary judgment can be considered. The court affirmed the chancery court’s reversal of summary judgment, finding that the county court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment prematurely and foreclosing discovery necessary to resolve factual issues related to the owners’ equitable claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings in the county court. View "Sea Breeze Condominiums & Resort Owners' Association, Inc. v. Lyons" on Justia Law

A healthcare administrator at a Mississippi correctional facility, who had served in that role for many years, was employed by a new contractor after it obtained the healthcare services contract for the facility. The administrator became concerned that a prison physician was providing inadequate care and might be impaired by drugs, reporting these concerns to her employer and recommending the physician’s termination. Despite those reports, the physician remained employed after a brief administrative leave. Later, the administrator was notified her employment would be terminated because the employer required all administrators to be registered nurses, and she did not meet that requirement.After her termination, the administrator filed suit in the Sunflower County Circuit Court, alleging wrongful termination and tortious interference. She argued her firing was due to her refusal to participate in denying adequate medical care and her repeated reports about the physician’s performance and possible drug use. The employer denied these allegations, and moved for summary judgment, asserting that she was an at-will employee and had not reported conduct subject to criminal penalties as required under the public-policy exceptions recognized in McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., Inc. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that her claims did not implicate criminal conduct and thus did not fall within McArn’s exceptions.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. It held that the administrator failed to show a genuine issue of material fact that she was discharged for refusal to participate in or for reporting criminal conduct, as required under McArn. The Court further clarified that Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp. did not expand McArn beyond criminal conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. View "Knighten v. VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman named Lewis sought medical care at Marion General Hospital for abdominal pain and constipation. She was evaluated by multiple physicians, including Dr. Armstead, Dr. Verucchi, and Dr. Jensen, and was diagnosed with sepsis and severe abdominal issues. After various tests and a transfer to the intensive care unit, her condition worsened, leading to her eventual transfer to another hospital where she was diagnosed with abdominal compartment syndrome and underwent emergency surgery. Lewis continued to suffer complications and ultimately died several months later. Her wrongful death beneficiaries brought suit against the hospital and the physicians, alleging medical negligence for failure to diagnose and treat her condition, failure to timely transfer her to a facility with higher-level care, and failure to consult appropriate specialists.The Marion County Circuit Court initially denied summary judgment to the defendants and allowed limited discovery. After further proceedings, the defendants again sought summary judgment, arguing that Mississippi Code Section 11-71-7 granted them legal immunity due to resource limitations caused by the COVID-19 state of emergency. The trial court agreed, finding the defendants immune and dismissing all claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the trial court’s summary judgment de novo. The Court held that Section 11-71-7 did not apply to all of the plaintiffs’ claims, as there was no evidence that several alleged acts of negligence—such as failure to diagnose, treat, or consult—were attributable to the COVID-19 state of emergency. The Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendants’ failure to timely transfer Lewis was related to COVID-19 resource limitations. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bush v. Marion General Hospital" on Justia Law