Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Halley Smith appealed a Chancery Court order which held Smith was not a wrongful-death beneficiary of Justin Smith. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Smith asked the Court to judicially declare that an in loco parentis child qualified as a wrongful-death beneficiary under Mississippi Code Section 11-7-13. Finding that an in loco parentis child does not qualify as a wrongful-death beneficiary, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Justin Michael Smith" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal from Chancery Court, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff Ralph Saulters alleged sufficient ownership interest in a disputed piece of land to sustain his complaint to clear title to his alleged remainder interest; whether the various allegations in his complaint fell under the ten-year statute of limitations to recover land or the general three-year statute of limitations governing fraud; and whether the relevant statute of limitations had expired. The chancellor denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff's valid claims were not time-barred. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s holding that the claim to quiet title was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, because any claims for actual and punitive damages were barred as untimely, the Court reversed the chancellor’s holding as applied to plaintiff's claims for damages. View "Lott v. Saulters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Bre’Annah Banks, Ladarius Harp, Kimberly Norris, Zerlanzeia Lambouths, and Lakedrick Reed filed suit against the Sherwin-Williams Company claiming products liability and negligence. After both sides elicited evidence from lay and expert witnesses supporting their arguments, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment for Sherwin-Williams based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish product identification, an essential element of their claim. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that, under the applicable standard for the consideration of summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to create an issue of material fact as to whether the paint in question came from Sherwin-Williams. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Banks v. Sherwin-Williams Company" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christopher Harrell of two crimes: felony murder, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Circuit Court sentenced Harrell to life without the possibility of parole and ten years, to run concurrently with the life sentence, for the possession charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions. Harrell raised four issues on direct appeal, but the Supreme Court addressed only two: (1) whether the circuit court erred in not instructing the jury on the elements of the underlying felony of robbery; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in granting the State’s requested flight instruction. The Court held that the failure to instruct the jury as to the elements of the charged crime deprived Harrell of due process in the form of his right to a jury trial, but that the circuit court did not err in granting the flight instruction. View "Harrell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Daniel Beasley appealed an Amite County jury's finding him guilty of murder. Beasley was charged in connection with the death of Janie Wilkinson in 2011. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict. View "Beasley v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Edward Cox appealed the Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a three-count indictment, which charged him with three counts of aggravated assault under Section 97-3-7 of the Mississippi Code. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the justice court’s act of revoking Cox’s suspended sentence for a prior misdemeanor assault and sentencing him to a six-month sentence barred the State from prosecuting Cox’s subsequent felony assaults. The Supreme Court held that Cox’s double-jeopardy claim applies only to his original charge, conviction, and sentence, but not his subsequent criminal actions. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Cox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This was the third appeal the Supreme Court decided arising out of litigation over a defective combine Edward J. Johnson Jr. purchased from Parker Tractor & Implement Co., Inc. in 1994. This case was a direct appeal from the Circuit Court’s dismissal of a garnishment action as time-barred by the seven-year limitations period. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court. View "Johnson, Jr. v. Parker Tractor & Implement Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Narjess Ghane, the mother of a deceased member of the Navy’s Sea, Air, and Land Force (SEAL) Team Five, brought a wrongful death action against a private military contractor. Along with other members of SEAL Team Five, SO2 Sharpoor Alexander (Alex) Ghane Jr. was engaged in a live-fire, close-quarters combat training exercise at Mid-South Institute of Self Defense when a bullet allegedly penetrated a ballistic wall, striking SO2 Ghane above his protective vest and killing him. Mid-South successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mrs. Ghane’s claim would require the trial court to question military policy and operational decisions, thus raising a nonjusticiable political question. The defendants had previously unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that SO2 Ghane had signed a valid waiver of liability. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment pertaining to the political question doctrine, but affirmed the trial court’s previous denial of summary judgment regarding to the liability waiver. The Court determined defendants failed to demonstrate that adjudication of this claim would require reexamination of matters inextricable from military policy and operational decisions. View "Ghane v. Mid-South Institute of Self Defense Shooting, Inc." on Justia Law

Rosemary Finch filed a complaint for separate maintenance, and her husband Stewart Finch responded with a counterclaim for divorce. In the course of their divorce proceedings, Rosemary and Stewart were required by Mississippi Chancery Court Rule 8.05 to provide a comprehensive financial statement listing their individual incomes and expenses and their marital and nonmarital assets and liabilities. The chancellor retroactively reduced alimony from $4,000 to $2,000 per month based on Rosemary’s failure adequately to disclose social security payments, additional debts, and a joint account with her mother, and Stewart having to pay for both Rosemary’s and his daughter’s vehicles in order to transfer title pursuant to the divorce judgment. In addition, Stewart was paying more than $800 per month to satisfy the additional marital debts. The chancellor retroactively reduced child support from $1,300 to $900 per month and further relieved Stewart of the obligation to pay any of his son’s educational expenses. Rosemary appealed this judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court. Based on the facts of this case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further factual findings regarding Stewart’s income and for a recalculation of alimony and child support. View "Finch v. Finch" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, the defendant alleged the plaintiff’s discovery response concerning his expert was insufficient. The trial judge ordered the plaintiff to produce the expert for a deposition but, due to illness, the expert was unable to attend the scheduled deposition. Without addressing whether the plaintiff was at fault for failure to comply with the court’s order to produce the expert for deposition, the trial court ordered that the expert would not be allowed to testify. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on that issue. View "Boyd v. Nunez" on Justia Law