Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Citing the 2014 State Health Plan, Methodist Healthcare - Olive Branch Hospital (Methodist) applied for a certificate of need (CON) - seeking approval to perform percutaneous coronary intervention(s), at its Olive Branch hospital. But Baptist Memorial Hospital - DeSoto (Baptist) - a competing hospital from the same service area - contested Methodist’s application. The Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) held a hearing and ultimately approved Methodist’s application. Baptist appealed to the Chancery Court. And after review, the chancellor affirmed MSDH’s decision. Baptist appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence that Methodist’s application substantially complied with the State Health Plan and was consistent with its requirements. So it affirmed. View "Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, Inc. v. Mississippi Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

In February 2006, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth MNS, Inc., filed an ex parte motion for a protective order in the Chancery Court, seeking to protect certain documents. The documents fell into the following four categories: (1) an August 2005 proposal submitted by BellSouth to the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services in response to the Department’s request for telecommunications products and services; (2) the Telecommunications Products and Service Agreement between BellSouth and the Department dated November 2005; (3) correspondence between BellSouth and the Department related to the first two documents; and (4) related BellSouth marketing materials. Following legislative amendments in 2015 to the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 and to Mississippi Code Section 25-1-100, CellularSouth sought production of the proposal and the contract between the Department and BellSouth. After review, the Supreme Court found the chancery court erred in its interpretation of the amended Mississippi Code Section 25-61-11 when it entered an order continuing to protect the contract from production. Furthermore, the Court held that, because the rights in question in the case sub judice were created by statute, the Public Records Act, as amended, governed this dispute. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cellular South, Inc. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Secretary of State found that David Watkins and Watkins Development, LLC, committed four securities-fraud violations in connection with revenue bonds sold to finance a renovation project at the Metrocenter mall in Jackson. Watkins appealed and the chancery court vacated one count but affirmed the other three. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Secretary on all four counts. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals in part because the Secretary failed to cross-appeal the chancellor’s decision to vacate Count I. That said, the Court affirmed the Secretary’s findings on the other three counts. View "Watkins Development, LLC v. Hosemann" on Justia Law

Before January 1, 2015,Mississippi Code Section 27-77-7 required taxpayers wishing to appeal tax assessments affirmed by the Board of Tax Appeals to post surety bonds for half the assessed taxes or pay the taxes under protest. But the Legislature amended the statute to remove that bonding requirement for appeals from assessments imposed after the amendment’s effective date of January 1, 2015. Marlena Robinson failed to post a bond or pay her taxes when she appealed a February 4, 2014, tax assessment, so the chancellor dismissed her appeal. Finding no reversible error in the chancellor’s dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Article 4, Section 59 of the Mississippi Constitution provided that in the Mississippi Legislature “every bill shall be read in full immediately before the vote on its final passage upon the demand of any member.” When Representative J. P. Hughes Jr. requested that certain bills be read as required by that article, Speaker Philip Gunn had the bills read by a machine at a speed that Rep.Hughes claims was incomprehensible and therefore a constitutional violation, leading him to file suit to stop the practice. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal and held that it was without constitutional authority to resolve this dispute. The Court therefore remanded this case to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "Gunn v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Under Mississippi law, a person wishing to appeal the adoption of a city’s ordinance must do so within ten days. The primary question presented for the Supreme Court’s review here was whether, as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Pearl (the “City”) argued, the appeal period began to run from the day of the ordinance’s adoption, or as the appellants argued, from its effective date. The Supreme Court found the appeal period for city ordinances began on the date an ordinance is adopted, and because the appellants’ bill of exceptions was presented to the City outside the ten-day period following the date of adoption, the circuit judge in this case properly dismissed the complaint for writ of mandamus. View "Pemberton Properties, LTD v. City of Pearl" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) adopted a rule requiring utilities to waive utility deposits for certified domestic violence victims for a period of sixty days. The rule also required the utilities to keep the information regarding the domestic violence victims confidential and established penalties for violating that confidentiality. The Mississippi Rural Water Association, Inc. (“Water Association”) objected to the promulgation of the new rule, but the chancery court affirmed the MPSC’s decision. The Supreme Court found that the MPSC lacked statutory authority to adopt any rule regulating the rates of nonprofit water utility associations and corporations. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment vacating the MPSC’s order adopting the new rule. View "Mississippi Rural Water Association, Inc. v. Mississippi Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Carolyn McAdams, mayor of the City of Greenwood, appealed a decision of the Leflore County Circuit Court, which held that the Greenwood City Council’s decision to hire legal counsel to represent the city’s interest in an election contest exceeded its power and violated the Mississippi Constitution. Finding error in the trial judge’s interpretation of Mississippi Code Sections 25-1-47 and 21-17-5, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "McAdams v. Perkins" on Justia Law

In 2007, the State of Mississippi, through the Attorney General’s office, filed suit against Louisville Tire Center, Inc. d/b/a Fair Oil Company (Fair Oil) for violating Mississippi’s price-gouging statute. Fair Oil filed a successful motion for summary judgment on the basis that the price-gouging statute was unconstitutional as written; however, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for the Chancery Court to examine Fair Oil’s conduct in light of the statute’s language. After remand, several years passed without activity in the case, and in July 2015, the Chancery Court granted Fair Oil’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The State appealed that decision. Finding no error in the dismissal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mississippi, Ex Rel. Hood, Attorney General v. Louisville Tire Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The State of Mississippi entered into a Public Trust Tidelands lease with the City of Bay St. Louis to build a municipal harbor on beachfront property. After the City began construction of the harbor, brothers Kenneth, Ray, and Audie Murphy filed an inverse condemnation action, claiming that the State and the City had taken and damaged their property without compensation. The case was tried and a jury ultimately found the State liable to the Murphys for $644,000 in damages. The State appealed. The State claimed true ownership of the property under the authority of the Tidelands Act, or alternatively, its sovereign power of eminent domain. There was no evidence in the record indicating that the City could have constructed the harbor without the State first exercising a claim of ownership over the property. Because the State’s claim of ownership ultimately converted private property to public use, the Supreme Court found that the jury acted reasonably in assessing the full amount of damages to the State. Therefore, finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s verdict. View "Mississippi v. Murphy" on Justia Law