Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Alexander Gardner sued the City of Jackson, alleging that he had suffered a broken leg when one of the City's police officers forced him to sit down while in handcuffs. The City filed for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. On review of the City's interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, finding that the officer's conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for Gardner's safety and well-being. View "City of Jackson v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Talib Hannah was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent. On appeal, he raised two issues: (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hannah's "Motion for the State to Disclose the Identity of Its Confidential Informant;" and (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Hannah's motion for continuance. As Hannah's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to call a witness was not recognized, the Supreme Court reversed his conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Hannah v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two shareholders of a closely held corporation. They attempted to tender their shares to the corporation pursuant to a buy-sell agreement. Unhappy with the corporation's purchase offer, the shareholders brought suit in Chancery Court, and the court in turn submitted the matter to binding arbitration as required by the agreement. The chancellor ultimately rejected the arbitrators' valuations and ordered the corporation to buy plaintiffs' shares at a much higher price. The corporation appealed the chancellor's rejection of the arbitrator's award, and plaintiffs cross-appealed claiming they were entitled to additional damages. Finding no legal basis for setting aside the arbitration award, the Supreme Court reversed the Chancery Court and reinstated the arbitration award. View "Bailey Brake Farms, Inc. v. Trout" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this breach of contract case was whether the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's refusal to submit an issue of punitive damages to the jury. Finding that the plaintiff presented clear and convincing evidence that the defendant exhibited bad faith in breaching the contract, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court for the jury to determine what punitive damages, if any, were due. View "T.C.B. Construction Company, Inc. v. W. C. Fore Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) filed a motion to appeal a final order entered by the Circuit Court. PERS supported the motion with an affidavit of an employee of the Attorney General’s office assigned to PERS who was responsible for tracking opinions and orders issued by the circuit court. The affiant stated that she regularly contacted the circuit clerk's office to ascertain the status of the case. The affiant swore that she was not told that a decision had been entered. The general docket itself revealed that the circuit clerk had failed to give notice of the entry of several other orders to the parties or their counsel. Barbara Dunn, Circuit Clerk of Hinds County, Mississippi, was directed to respond and show cause why sanctions should not have been imposed. Dunn and one of her employees admitted that clerical errors were made in this case. They denied that any docket entries were backdated, and further query revealed that Dunn's office erroneously had sent notice regarding the circuit court’s final decision to the address of a deceased lawyer who had never been involved with this case, mistyped attorney bar numbers (and had no mechanism to detect the error). PERS’s counsel of record was never added to the general docket. Finding that Dunn’s office has implemented a personnel training program which was being supervised by the Hinds County circuit judges, the Supreme Court concluded that, while mistakes were made in this case by Dunn’s staff, those oversights did not warrant harsh sanctions. Accordingly, Dunn was ordered to implement procedures for routine verification of the names and contact information of parties and their counsel, and ordered to pay the cost of the record from the evidentiary hearing in the amount of $947.75 from her personal funds, and not from public funds. View "In Re: Barbara Dunn, Hinds County Circuit Clerk" on Justia Law

The insureds in this case filed suit against their insurers claiming they were unaware their insurance policy had a $250,000 per-claim deductible and alleging that the insurer breached its insurance contract by refusing to provide a defense until the they paid the $250,000 deductible for each of five separate claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurers and the insureds appealed. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Southern Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Lloyd's of London" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the circuit court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Nutt & McAlister, PLLC; David Nutt & Associates, PC; David H. Nutt; and Mary Krichbaum McAlister (“Nutt, et al.”) sought to enforce the mandatory arbitration provision in a contract titled “In Re: Katrina Litigation Joint Venture Agreement” (“Katrina JVA”). In a prior appeal, the Supreme Court settled the issue as to whether Appellee Wyatt’s claims were related to the Katrina JVA. The sole issue for determination then was whether the trial court erred by finding that Nutt, et al., waived their right to enforce the provision. Upon review, the Court concluded that Nutt, et al., did not waive their right to compel arbitration. The Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded this case with instructions to refer Wyatt’s claims to arbitration. View "Nutt v. Wyatt" on Justia Law

In this Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erred in finding the City of Jackson (the City) liable for the death of Tawanda Sandifer. Tawanda Sandifer was a chronic runaway. Tawanda’s mother, Mildred Sandifer, testified at trial that Tawanda began running away from home for extended periods of time. Tawanda ran away approximately seventeen times before she ran away for the last time in April 2005. Mildred testified that she had filed a runaway petition for Tawanda every time she had run away, and that Jackson Police Department (JPD) had taken Tawanda into custody on a few occasions. In 2006, approximately nine months after running away, a then fifteen-year-old Tawanda died as a result of blunt-force trauma after being beaten by her boyfriend, Toice Wilson. Tawanda’s parents, on behalf of her wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed suit against the City of Jackson and several police officers, in their official and individual capacities, for, among other claims, the wrongful death of Tawanda. The Sandifers alleged that the City caused or contributed to Tawanda’s death by ignoring its own policies with regard to runaways; by failing to investigate Tawanda’s claims in 2004 that she was having sex with a JPD officer; by negligently failing to train, hire, supervise, instruct, monitor or control its employees; by failing to maintain an adequate system to hire, train, supervise, instruct, monitor, and/or control its employees; by allowing Tawanda to be subjected to assault, battery, physical, mental, and sexual abuse; and by failing to timely apprehend Tawanda and deliver her to her parents and other appropriate agencies despite knowledge of her status as a runaway. The circuit court ultimately concluded that the City’s failure to fully investigate Tawanda’s case “caused [Tawanda] to succumb to the brutal and fatal actions of Toice Wilson” and that Wilson and the City were jointly responsible for Tawanda’s death. The circuit court assessed damages in the amount of $1 million. The City then appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the City was immune from liability for the alleged misconduct of its employees at issue in this case under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court. View "City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Sandifer, Jr." on Justia Law

In 2010, Edward Daniels was indicted for burglary of a dwelling. The indictment alleged that he broke and entered a dwelling with the intent to commit grand larceny. Later, the State amended the indictment to charge Daniels as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-83. The trial court granted the amendment and the case went to trial. Because Daniels did not appear for trial, the case was tried in his absence. The jury found Daniels guilty, and the court delayed sentencing until Daniels could be located. The court ultimately sentenced Daniels to life without the possibility of parole under Section 99-19-83. Daniels subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court denied. Daniels appealed his conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court denying Daniels's motion for new trial and remanded the case for further proceedings, because the jury instruction on the elements of burglary "was fatally flawed." View "Daniels v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Holly McKnight and Walter Jenkins were married from 1972 until 2004. The parties have one daughter. After the parties divorced in 2004, they initially shared joint legal custody of their child, with Holly having physical custody. After four years, Walter filed a Petition for Contempt, Modification of Custody and Temporary Visitation. Following a hearing in 2008, custody was modified to give legal and physical custody to Walter, with Holly having regular visitation. Two months after custody was modified, Walter filed a new Petition for Contempt, Modification of Visitation and Temporary Relief in which he accused Holly of not returning all of their child's belongings and sought to make Holly's visitation limited and supervised. As a result, the parties entered into an Agreed Preliminary Injunction, which indefinitely suspended Holly's visitation. A year after the agreed injunction, Holly moved to change physical and legal custody back to her, with Walter having visitation. A hearing was conducted on Walter's contempt petition and on Holly's petition to modify custody. After the hearing, the chancellor denied Holly's petition for modification of custody and child support, held her in contempt, and required her to pay Walter and the guardian ad litem. Holly appealed, alleging the chancellor erred by: (1) not modifying custody; (2) finding her in contempt; (3) not finding Walter in contempt; (4) not awarding her attorneys' fees and assessing her some of Walter's attorneys' fees and the guardian ad litem's fees; (5) excluding evidence preceding the October 2008 custody order; and (6) restricting certain witnesses' testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor on all issues. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court on all issues except the contempt judgment against Holly and the related attorney's fees award. View "McKnight v. Jenkins" on Justia Law