Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

by
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

by
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

by
This case was an interlocutory appeal of the Lincoln County Circuit court’s Order Denying the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Although the plaintiff’s overarching claim was framed in negligence, it factually sounded in intentional tort and was subsequently barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Mississippi Code Section 15-1-49. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s Order Denying Summary Judgement and rendered a verdict in favor of the Defendant. View "Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. McCullough" on Justia Law

by
Caleb Corrothers was convicted of two counts of capital murder and one count of aggravated assault. For the two capital-murder convictions, he received the death penalty. Corrothers appealed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence. He petitioned the Court for permission to proceed in the trial court with a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), citing ten alleged violations of his constitutional rights. For nine of Corrothers’s ten claims, the Court found Corrothers failed to present claims that were both procedurally alive and substantially showed the denial of a state or federal right. But for Corrothers’s claim of juror bias through improper contact, the Court found further proceedings in the trial court were necessary. Thus, the Court granted him leave to proceed in the trial court on this issue only. The rest of the petition was denied. View "Carothers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
In 2015, a Covington County jury found Howard Lindsey guilty of two counts of gratification of lust and two counts of sexual battery. On appeal, Lindsey argued that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no issue with the verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Lindsey’s convictions and sentences. View "Lindsey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

by
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) appeals the Sunflower County Circuit Court’s decision requiring it to develop a parole case plan for Robert Boyd. In 1986, Boyd was convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, and to four years for each aggravated assault. In May 2001, MDOC released Boyd on parole. But eight years later, he absconded supervision and his parole was revoked. Boyd was released on parole a second time in September 2010, but again violated the terms of his parole and it was revoked in 2013. In July 2015, Boyd asked MDOC to implement a parole case plan for him in accordance with newly enacted Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3.1. When it refused, Boyd moved for judicial review at the Circuit Court, which found that the newly enacted code section could be applied retroactively to Boyd's sentence. Finding that the Circuit Court erred in its analysis of the new law, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for judgment in favor of MDOC. View "Mississippi Dept. of Corrections v. Boyd" on Justia Law

by
Charles Allen, a parole-eligible inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed a request pursuant to the administrative review procedure (ARP) that MDOC develop a case plan for him. MDOC denied the request and, after exhausting his administrative remedies, Allen appealed to the Circuit Court of Sunflower County. The circuit court found that Allen was entitled to receive a case plan under an amendment to the Probation and Parole Law. MDOC appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Allen's appeal because it was untimely, and, alternatively, that the Probation and Parole Law did not entitle Allen to receive a case plan. Because MDOC’s argument that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Allen’s action was not supported by the record, the Supreme Court did not consider it. The Supreme Court found that the Probation and Parole Law did not entitle Allen to a case plan. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the circuit court and rendered a decision in favor of MDOC. View "Mississippi Dept. of Corrections v. Allen" on Justia Law

by
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) appealed the Sunflower County Circuit Court’s decision requiring it to develop a parole case plan for Jerry Bland. In 1982, Bland pleaded guilty to capital murder, burglary of a dwelling, and uttering a forgery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the capital murder, to ten years for the burglary, and to fifteen years for the forgery. Bland first was eligible for parole in October 1998, but he was denied. Since then, Bland had seven more parole hearings. After House Bill 585 went into effect in July 2014, Bland sought a parole case plan pursuant to newly enacted Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3.1. On July 1, 2015, Bland filed his "first step" with MDOC’s Administrative Remedy Program (ARP). In response, MDOC said that House Bill 585 was not retroactive and that it applied only to those offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2014. Bland then filed a motion for judicial review with the Circuit Court, and the circuit judge reversed MDOC’s decision, finding that Section 47-7-3.1 applied retroactively to offenders sentenced before July 1, 2014. MDOC appealed. Because the Supreme Court found that section 47-7-3.1 did not clearly and unequivocally express an intention for retroactive applicability, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment. View "Mississippi Dept. of Corrections v. Bland" on Justia Law

by
Quindon Thomas, an employee of a contractor at Chevron’s petroleum refinery plant in Pascagoula, was injured on the job. Thomas accepted workers’ compensation benefits provided by Chevron for his injuries. Thomas then sued Chevron and one of its employees for the same injuries. Chevron asserted the exclusive-remedy defense under the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act and the circuit court granted summary judgment to Chevron. Thomas appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that Chevron was not a statutory employer of Thomas and therefore was not immune from tort liability. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Chevron, reversed the trial court’s denial of Thomas’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded for a trial on the merits. View "Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

by
Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Graceland Care Center of Oxford, LLC; Graceland Management Company, Inc.; Lafayette LTC, Inc.; and Yalobusha General Hospital and Nursing Home (collectively, Graceland) in a case brought by Shirley Adams for injuries her mother allegedly sustained while in the defendants’ care. As the basis for granting summary judgment, the circuit court determined that Adams was judicially estopped from bringing her suit because Adams had failed to disclose the suit in her prior bankruptcy proceedings. Adams appealed, and the Court of Appeals, in a plurality opinion, reversed the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court to proceed with a trial on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review and held that the Court of Appeals misapplied the applicable standard of review and the law of judicial estoppel in the instant case. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "Adams v. Graceland Care Center of Oxford, LLC" on Justia Law