Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In an interlocutory appeal, Pekin Insurance Company challenged the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Pekin was an Illinois company not licensed to sell insurance in Mississippi. Pekin asserted it had not entered into a contract with a Mississippi Resident, had not committed a tort in Mississippi and had not done any business in Mississippi-- making in ineligible to be subject to the jurisdiction of Mississippi courts under the Mississippi long-arm statute. The Mississippi Supreme Court, after review of the facts of this case, found that Pekin voluntarily submitted itself to Mississippi's jurisdiction in federal court when it asked that court to resolve the same coverage dispute over which it claimed here that Mississippi courts had no jurisdiction. The Court accordingly affirmed the trial court here in denying Pekin's motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pekin Insurance Company v. Hinton" on Justia Law

William Burgess, a common stock shareholder of BancorpSouth, Inc., filed a shareholder derivative action after a Special Committee comprised of BancorpSouth directors and officers rejected his presuit demand. In that presuit demand and in his Shareholder Derivative Complaint, Burgess made various claims relating to alleged misrepresentations in company publications directed to shareholders following the 2008 economic downturn. Ultimately, the Circuit Court dismissed the action. Finding no reversible error in the Circuit Court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burgess v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Regina Corr sued Dr. Charles Robinson for medical malpractice. The jury awarded Corr $55,634.78 for past medical expenses and $420,000 for pain and suffering. Robinson filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for remittitur, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Dr. Robinson argues that the trial court erred in excluding his proffered testimony, in admitting testimony from Regina’s expert that was outside her expert’s designation, and in denying his request for a remittitur. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Robinson v. Corr" on Justia Law

Charles Bester pleaded guilty to forcible rape, and the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. Bester petitioned for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing that the forcible rape statute allowed only a jury to impose a life sentence, and absent a recommendation from a jury, a trial judge is powerless to impose such a sentence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and denied Bester’s PCR motion. Agreeing with both courts, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bester v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2006, Dr. Terry McMillin and his wife Leslie purchased a new home in Tupelo. Unhappy with contractor Jamie Ewing’s failure to respond to their repair requests, plus their discovery of a document (a blue card, noting a failed home inspection) listing the name of a different contractor as the contractor responsible for their home’s construction, the McMillins began the process of unraveling just who was responsible for building their new home. Ultimately, this case stemmed from an error by the City of Tupelo’s Permit Manager Marilyn Vail in handling the withdrawal of one licensed contractor and mistakenly substituting the name of another licensed contractor, when in actuality, a licensed contractor was not working on the home. The circuit court held a bench trial and awarded $9,319.23 in damages to repair the home and $105,894.39 in legal fees related to another case involving the construction but denied the McMillins’ request for attorneys’ fees in this case. The City appealed, and the McMillins cross-appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in finding that the City was not immune from liability. The Court therefore reversed the circuit court’s judgment and render judgment in favor of the City. View "City of Tupelo v. McMillin" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance issued a Formal Complaint against Chancellor David Shoemake, alleging judicial misconduct. The Complaint contained allegations that Judge Shoemake had contributed to the mismanagement of the conservatorship of Victoria Denise Newsome. After a formal hearing on March 12, 2015, the Commission recommended to the Supreme Court that Judge Shoemake be removed from office, fined $2,500, and assessed costs in the amount of $5,882.67. Judge Shoemake disputes the Commission’s findings and recommendation. After review, the Supreme Court held that Judge Shoemake improperly signed ex parte orders and contributed to the mismanagement of a ward’s estate. However, the Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Shoemake gave testimony that he knew or should have known would be misleading. The Court ordered that Judge Shoemake be publicly reprimanded, be suspended from office for thirty days without pay, pay a fine of $2,500, and pay costs in the amount of $5,882.67. View "Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Shoemake" on Justia Law

Steven Lee Boggs appealed his conviction for one count of gratification of lust, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present improper character evidence. This case arose out of Boggs’s interactions with three minor victims, K.E., S.S. and D.N. The indictment originally included separate charges concerning Boggs’s misconduct toward S.S. and K.E. However, the charge involving S.S. was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds prior to trial. Thus, Boggs was tried only for his misconduct toward K.E. Boggs was charged by a separate indictment for an offense involving D.N., but an order nolle prosequi was entered on that indictment in 2011, before the indictment in the instant case was issued. S.S. and D.N. testified for the State in support of Boggs' conviction for his misconduct against K.E. Boggs testified in his own defense and denied any wrongdoing. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Boggs guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to serve fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On appeal, Boggs argued that the trial court erred in allowing D.N. and S.S. to testify regarding Boggs’s prior acts of sexual misconduct against them. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Boggs' conviction. View "Boggs v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Henry Roop sued Southern Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“SPC”) and its principal owners, individually, claiming he has been terminated for reporting illegal activity, namely a kickback scheme to be carried out through a straw employee. SPC countered that it fired Roop for, among other things, not meeting his contract goals for the year. A jury found SPC wrongfully terminated Roop for reporting illegal activity, and the jury awarded Roop compensatory damages. The circuit court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in SPC’s favor. The circuit court reasoned that the jury would have had to speculate whether the arrangement would have been illegal, as the employment, and thus the kickback, never took place. Roop appealed, arguing that the judge had erred in overturning the jury’s verdict and in not thereafter proceeding with a hearing on punitive damages. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the trial court erred in overturning the jury's verdict, reversed, and remanded the case for further proceedings on Roop's other claims for punitive damages and attorney's fees. View "Roop v. Southern Pharmaceuticals Corp." on Justia Law

A drug task force was attempting to execute a search warrant on a suspected drug house when gunfire broke out. Several men were standing in front of the house as the taskforce arrived, and, according to the officers, at least one of those men started shooting at the officers and their vehicles. One of the police officers, who was riding in the bed of a pickup truck, stood and returned fire. Ronnie Burton was standing with the man or men who allegedly were shooting at the police, but he did not fire the shots. Instead, he began to run before the shooting started. At some point a bullet struck Burton. The bullet passed through his right shoulder and was never found. Burton did not actually see anyone shoot, and he admitted that he could not identify exactly when he was shot, where he was when he got shot, what caliber of bullet hit him, or who shot him. He conceded that it was possible that one of his armed companions at the house could have fired the shot that hit him, but Burton believed the police shot him. The police officer who returned fire testified that the one person he shot at was not Burton but a man shooting at the police vehicles. Burton did not produce any witnesses or other evidence to contradict the testimony of the officers. Because he was caught fleeing the scene and in possession of a weapon, Burton was arrested. He was released shortly thereafter, when it was determined that he was not the shooter. Burton sued the law enforcement entities that made up the task force as well as the officer who fired his weapon. The Circuit Court rejected the defendants’ claims of Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) immunity, and found in favor of Burton on most of his claims, awarding him $350,000 for his injuries. Because the Supreme Court found that defendants were immune under the MTCA, it reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in their favor. View "Hinds County v. Burton" on Justia Law

A drug task force was attempting to execute a search warrant on a suspected drug house when gunfire broke out. Several men were standing in front of the house as the taskforce arrived, and, according to the officers, at least one of those men started shooting at the officers and their vehicles. One of the police officers, who was riding in the bed of a pickup truck, stood and returned fire. Ronnie Burton was standing with the man or men who allegedly were shooting at the police, but he did not fire the shots. Instead, he began to run before the shooting started. At some point a bullet struck Burton. The bullet passed through his right shoulder and was never found. Burton did not actually see anyone shoot, and he admitted that he could not identify exactly when he was shot, where he was when he got shot, what caliber of bullet hit him, or who shot him. He conceded that it was possible that one of his armed companions at the house could have fired the shot that hit him, but Burton believed the police shot him. The police officer who returned fire testified that the one person he shot at was not Burton but a man shooting at the police vehicles. Burton did not produce any witnesses or other evidence to contradict the testimony of the officers. Because he was caught fleeing the scene and in possession of a weapon, Burton was arrested. He was released shortly thereafter, when it was determined that he was not the shooter. Burton sued the law enforcement entities that made up the task force as well as the officer who fired his weapon. The Circuit Court rejected the defendants’ claims of Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) immunity, and found in favor of Burton on most of his claims, awarding him $350,000 for his injuries. Because the Supreme Court found that defendants were immune under the MTCA, it reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in their favor. View "Hinds County v. Burton" on Justia Law