Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kyle and Marla Moore timely filed a medical malpractice suit against St. Dominic Hospital, Jackson Neurosurgery Clinic, and several physicians, claiming that the physicians and hospital had been negligent in treating Kyle in May 2004. Kyle complained of lower back pain. Kyle was diagnosed with an epidural abscess. Kyle went to the emergency room at St. Dominic on the morning of May 23, 2004; within a 24-hour period, Kyle was seen by a series of doctors at the hospital before getting an operation on May 24. The Moores contended that surgery should have been done sooner and that the delay in treatment resulted in neurological injury to Kyle. In March 2011, the Moores added Dr. Howard Holaday as a defendant. Dr. Holaday moved for summary judgment, asserting that the two-year statute of limitations had expired. The trial court denied summary judgment, and Dr. Holaday petitioned the Supreme Court for an interlocutory appeal. The issue this appeal presented for the Court's review was whether the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations against Dr. Holaday. The Court held that whether the discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations required a determination by the trier of fact (here, the jury) regarding the “date the alleged act, omission or neglect shall or with reasonable diligence might have been first discovered.” The trial court, therefore, properly denied summary judgment to Dr. Holaday. View "Holaday v. Moore" on Justia Law

After the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors voted to abandon a railroad crossing, the county put up a barricade. Residents affected by the barricade filed two separate motions for reconsideration, and the Board held a second meeting in which it affirmed the abandonment but ordered the barricade removed. The residents filed a bill of exceptions which reversed the Board’s decision to abandon the crossing. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding it had no jurisdiction to hear the bill of exceptions. After review, the Supreme Court found that, although the circuit court had appellate jurisdiction to review the Board’s second decision, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Board’s original decision. So the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed, and the case remanded for the circuit court to consider only whether the Board’s second order complied with the statutory procedure for abandoning a road. View "Lowndes County v. McClanahan" on Justia Law

At trial, a defendant referred to a document that should have been produced in discovery but was not. In view of this revelation, the plaintiff filed two post-trial motions: one asking for new trial, judgment as a matter of law, or to reconsider; and one asking for sanctions for the discovery violation. The trial judge granted the motion for a new trial and recused from it, but he declined to rule on the sanctions issue, leaving that open for the next judge to determine. The defendants subsequently admitted liability, leaving damages the sole issue for the new trial. Plaintiff appealed, claiming the trial judge ruled on the case after he had recused from it. The plaintiff also argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting judgment as a matter of law as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. Finding no merit in either argument, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Barnes v. Jefferson Davis Cty Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Greater Fairview Missionary Baptist Church’s pastor, Danny Ray Hollins, was placed on paid administrative leave after he was accused of inappropriate sexual contact with a minor. The church decided to hold a vote on whether to retain Hollins as pastor. That vote originally was scheduled to take place in early 2013. But tensions arose in the church about Hollins’s status, giving rise to a “chaotic situation,” and the vote did not take place as planned. Instead, the church voted to allow the Deacons’ Ministry to form a legal committee and to hire outside legal counsel for assistance in resolving the internal conflict. On March 1, 2013, the day before the vote, Hollins filed a petition with the Chancery Court seeking “to enjoin any unauthorized and improper meetings and/or actions taken outside a properly called membership meeting.” The petition named the church and five deacons as defendants. Hollins asserted that the church planned to have a meeting on March 2 “to vote on a resolution discharging [him] as pastor.” He claimed that the vote would be invalid because (1) “there ha[d] been no certification of the list of members in good standing who would be entitled to vote . . .”; (2) absent such certification, adequate notice to eligible members could not be accomplished; and (3) the state denominational guidelines had not been followed because “there ha[d] been no attempts at Conciliation or other notice given to Plaintiff as pastor as required.” Hollins also claimed that he would be irreparably harmed if he was “voted out as Pastor,” in that his reputation would suffer, he would lose his income, and he would suffer emotionally. Finally, Hollins asserted that there was “a high likelihood [that he would succeed] in the merits of his case, namely that any meeting of church membership without proper certification of voter rolls and notice and adherence to all established guidelines is void . . . .” Hollins’s counsel certified that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was needed, that he had been unable to notice the defendants, that the defendants would not be prejudiced by the TRO, and that on “information and belief [the church] is not represented by counsel duly hired by the church membership.” The chancellor issued the TRO, "apparently without reading it." Five deacons and the church were named as defendants, the TRO was served on only four of the deacons (the agent for service of process for the church was deceased and could not be served). The TRO purported to enjoin “any membership meeting,” but the chancellor later explained it was intended to “restrain any vote that may take place.” The chancellor issued the TRO, but the church voted anyway and dismissed Hollins. The chancellor then vacated the vote and ordered the church to conduct another vote, this time with certain court-ordered procedures regarding notice, eligibility, vote-counting, and security. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal, and vacated Chancery Court’s orders in this case. Because Hollins’s request for a TRO presented a purely ecclesiastical controversy, the chancery court was without jurisdiction to hear it. As such, the Chancery Court erred in issuing the TRO and in vacating the vote and ordering a new one. View "Greater Fairview Missionary Baptist Church v. Hollins" on Justia Law

Willie Kinzie sued Belk Department Stores, L.P., Belk, Inc., David Flowers, Shanay Grant, Kathy Coffey, Donald Smith, Nikki Daggins, Ray Faja, Staffmark Investment, LLC, and John Does 1-5 (Belk Defendants) for injuries he sustained while unloading a trailer that had transported merchandise to a Belk retail store. The trial court dismissed Kinzie’s lawsuit with prejudice, finding that Kinzie had misrepresented his injuries during discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case, holding that Kinzie had not misrepresented his injuries and that the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice was not warranted. "Dismissal is appropriate only under the most extreme circumstances and only where lesser sanctions will not suffice." The Supreme Court, after review, concluded that this was not an extreme case, and lesser sanctions could deter misleading responses without dismissing Kinzie’s claims altogether. The Court therefore affirmed that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which held that dismissal with prejudice was not warranted. However, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Kinzie had committed a discovery violation. The Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for trial. View "Kinzie v. Belk Department Stores, L.P." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the grant of summary judgment and a final judgment against Melanie Bosarge. The trial court found that Bosarge was individually liable for the deficiency balance after foreclosure under the terms of a personal guaranty she executed in relation to a secured loan made to her company, Indian Head Station, LLC ("Indian Head"). On appeal, Bosarge argued that a material issue of fact existed, inter alia, as to the value of the property securing the debt, that LWC MS Properties, LLC (LWC) should not have been permitted to maintain suit as a dissolved corporation, and that Bosarge should have been allowed to amend her pleadings and answer under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15. After review, the Supreme Court agreed that material facts indeed existed, and reversed and remanded the case with respect to summary judgment. Further, the Court found the second and third issues should have been addressed by the trial court upon remand. View "Bosarge v. LWC MS Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Tallahatchie General Hospital moved to dismiss a medical malpractice claim filed against it because the plaintiffs failed to provide it with proper presuit notice before the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the filing of the complaint tolled the statute of limitations, despite the plaintiffs’ failure to provide proper presuit notice. Finding no reversible error to the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tallahatchie General Hospital v. Howe" on Justia Law

In October 2010, Clara Dees filed a medical malpractice suit against Heritage House Nursing Home and its employees and against River Region Medical Center and its employees. River Region was owned by Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC. Dees also filed, with her complaint, a certificate of consultation. Dees filed an amended complaint in January 2011, also accompanied by a certificate. No summonses were issued until after February 16, 2011, the same date Dees moved the court for an enlargement of time (which was granted). Dees issued a number of summonses from February 22 to March 3, 2011. In May, an agreed order staying the proceedings and compelling binding arbitration was entered concerning defendants Heritage House Nursing Home and its employees. Vicksburg Healthcare moved to set aside the order allowing additional time to serve process. Vicksburg Healthcare also moved to dismiss and, alternatively, moved for summary judgment, while also asserting its affirmative defenses and answering the amended complaint. In February 2012, Heritage House Nursing Home filed its motion to confirm the arbitrator’s ruling. Dees failed to submit a response, and failed to request additional time in which to respond, and did not request a continuance of the scheduled hearing. The circuit court confirmed the decision of the arbitrator, dismissing with prejudice all claims against Heritage House Nursing Home and its employees. Subsequently, a notice of service of discovery requests was filed by Vicksburg Healthcare in September of 2012. In December, Vicksburg Healthcare filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, and shortly thereafter filed a new a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Dees had failed to designate any expert witness and had failed to provide expert-witness testimony to establish a prima facie case in support of her claim. Dees then responded, requesting that the motion for summary judgment be denied, and designating her expert. No affidavit signed by the expert was attached. The motion for summary judgment was heard by the circuit court in January 2013, and was denied based on Dees’s designation. The circuit court granted Dees an additional sixty days in which to provide a sworn affidavit of the expert’s testimony. The circuit court provided that Vicksburg Healthcare could renew its motion for summary judgment once the expert opinion had been submitted. Vicksburg Healthcare petitioned the Supreme Court for interlocutory appeal, arguing (1) that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment; and (2) that the trial court erred in granting Dees additional time to submit her expert's affidavit establishing her claim. The Supreme Court concluded the record was clear that the trial court erred in not granting Vicksburg Healthcare’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC v. Dees" on Justia Law

In 1999 the County Court of Lauderdale County determined that Brian Bronk was the natural father of Margaret Hobson's minor child. In that same judgment, the court granted sole custody to Hobson. Soon after the child's birth, the county court entered a judgment ordering Bronk to pay child support to Hobson in the amount of $400 per month. In 2013, Bronk presented an ore tenus motion in which he contended that all of the orders and judgments related to child custody were invalid because the county court never had jurisdiction to determine custody in the first place. Upon review of this matter, the Supreme Court agreed: county courts do not have jurisdiction to make child custody determinations ab initio. Accordingly, the Court reversed the custody determination of the County Court of Lauderdale County and remanded the case to the county court with instructions to transfer the proceedings to chancery court. View "Bronk v. Hobson" on Justia Law

In June 2011 the Department of Revenue assessed additional individual, sales, and corporate taxes against taxpayers Southside, Inc. d/b/a Wines, Etc. and Barry and Sarabeth Artz. They appealed a Board of Tax ruling without satisfying the statutory requirements of paying the disputed taxes under protest before appealing or posting a surety bond with their appeal. Because the chancery court lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the chancellor granted the Department of Revenue’s motion to dismiss. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Southside, Inc. d/b/a Wines, Etc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue" on Justia Law