Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher Taylor was convicted of one count of burglary and one count of larceny. He appealed his conviction and sentence, raising three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State's impeachment evidence; (2) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support his convictions; and (3) whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Taylor's conviction and sentence. View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Appellant David Javarious Jamison "Jamie" Renfro was convicted of armed robbery. The victim testified that Renfro entered her trailer home and robbed her at gunpoint. A second eyewitness corroborated most of the victim's testimony. The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict, and Renfro was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended. On appeal, Renfro argued that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and therefore, he was entitled to a new trial. Because the Supreme Court found that it was well-supported by the weight of the evidence, the Court upheld the jury's verdict. View "Renfro v.Mississippi" on Justia Law

Norma Slater-Moore hired the Goeldner Law Firm and its attorneys to represent her in what ultimately was an unsuccessful lawsuit and its appeal. Slater-Moore and Goeldner entered into two separate contracts during the course of that litigation, both containing nearly identical provisions stating that any attorney-fee disputes would be submitted to arbitration. Slater-Moore later sued Goeldner for legal malpractice and breach of contract, disputing, among other allegations, the amount she was billed for attorney fees. Goeldner successfully moved the Circuit Court to compel arbitration of the attorney-fee dispute, and Slater-Moore appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court found ]no grounds for revocation of a valid agreement to arbitrate the fee dispute, the Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Slater-Moore v. Goeldner" on Justia Law

Appellants raised a constitutional challenge to a fee legislated on cigarettes distributed through Mississippi for sale outside the state, claiming separate violations of the Commerce and Due-Process Clauses. In 2009, the Mississippi Legislature passed a law imposing a fee on the sale, purchase, and distribution in Mississippi of cigarettes manufactured by companies that did not enter into settlement agreements with the State as a result of a 1997 lawsuit (the "nonsettling manufacturer" or "NSM" law), "including cigarettes sold, purchased or otherwise distributed in this state for sale outside of this state." In October 2009, the chancery court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Commissioner of Revenue from assessing and collecting the challenged fee, and later ruled that the legislative amendment did not apply retroactively, denied Appellants' motion for reconsideration, and granted the Commissioner's motion for final judgment. However, the chancery court did not enter final judgment at that time. In 2011, the chancellor entered final judgment, which incorporated an August 2010 order (denying Appellants’ request for a permanent injunction and declaratory relief) and a May 2011 order (denying motion for rehearing and granting motion for final judgment). Appellants raised several issues on appeal; the Supreme Court found that the provision of the NSM law imposing a fee on NSM cigarettes distributed through Mississippi for sale outside the state was not internally consistent in violation of the Commerce Clause. The Court declined to address Appellants' due process argument. Furthermore, the Court found that the chancery court erred in granting claims for attorney fees asserted under 42 U.S.C. 1988 for Appellants' section 1983 challenge to the constitutionality of the NSM law. The Court found that all Appellants had an adequate remedy at state law (declaratory relief under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 57), and as such, the chancery court should have "refrain[ed] from considering Section 1983 claims in tax cases, mooting Section 1988 claims for fees. That being said, no basis exist[ed] for a claim by Appellants for attorney fees." View "Commonwealth Brands, Inc. v. Morgan" on Justia Law

After a lengthy battle regarding child custody, visitation, and child support, a chancellor granted Frankie Reasor custody of his teenage daughter. But the chancellor found Reasor in arrears on child-support payments, held him in contempt, and entered a judgment in favor of Rose Jordan for back child support. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal concerned a subsequent hearing in which a second chancellor determined the amount of arrears, entered a fifty-five-percent withholding order to collect the judgment, and ordered Reasor to pay Jordan’s attorney’s fees. Reasor raised five issues on appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor erred by entering a fifty-five percent withholding order. The Court affirmed the chancellor in all other respects, and remanded the case for recalculation of the withholding. View "Frankie L. Reasor v. Rose M. Johnson Jordan" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned an interlocutory appeal of the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) which sought review of the denial of its motion for summary judgment in a wrongful-death action filed by the beneficiaries of A.J. Cowart (Nosef). Cowart drove into an unmarked culvert and flipped his car. Cowart was taken to the hospital where he later died. Nosef filed this suit against MDOT, claiming that MDOT's failure to place warning signs around the culvert resulted in the accident that caused Cowart's death. MDOT claimed in its motion that it was immune from liability under the state Tort Claims Act. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the law imposed a ministerial duty to place warning signs around highway culverts which had not been abrogated or repealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court and affirmed the denial of summary judgment. View "Mississippi Dept. of Transportation v. Nosef" on Justia Law

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Automotive Finance Company, after defendant Paul Tyler failed to respond in a timely manner to a request for admissions. Defendant's argument on appeal was that he was not properly served with either the request for admissions or the following motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order deeming the unanswered request admitted. Based upon the evidence contained within the admissions, the court also granted Automotive Finance's motion for summary judgment. Well after the trial court entered a final judgment, Defendant filed a motion to amend his admissions, which the trial court denied. Defendant appealed both the order denying reconsideration of summary judgment and the order denying his post-finaljudgment motion to amend the admissions. Finding no error on the part of the trial court, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tyler v. Automotive Finance Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Derrick Burdette was indicted and tried for the murder of Herman Smith. The jury acquitted him of murder but found him guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter. Burdette was sentenced to a twenty-year term in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), to run consecutively with a sentence he already was serving for an unrelated offense. On appeal, Burdette argued: (1) that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and (2) that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. While the Court found error amounting to the violation of Burdette's right to confront the witnesses against him, the error did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. View "Burdette v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Shirley and Robert Alston filed suit against Defendants Justin Pope and T.K. Stanley, Inc. seeking damages they claimed resulted from a motor-vehicle accident in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The circuit court dismissed the case on grounds of forum non conveniens. The Alstons then filed suit in Alabama. The suit was dismissed because Alabama's statute of limitations for the claim had expired. The Alstons thereafter filed a motion for relief from judgment, under Rule 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure at the circuit court, claiming the circuit court's previous dismissal was void because Defendants had failed to file a written stipulation with the court, waiving the right to assert a statute-of-limitations defense. The circuit court denied the Alstons' motion and the Alstons appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter for an adjudication on the merits after finding the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. After its review, the high court found that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the circuit court's decision to deny the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion, Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion. View "Alston v. Pope" on Justia Law

Defendant Tyrell Williams was convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). On appeal, he argued that he did not knowingly waive his constitutional rights, and the trial court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress his inculpatory statement. Because the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard at the suppression hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new suppression hearing and a new trial. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law