Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Perreice Collins filed a wrongful death action on behalf of her minor daughter, Shoniqwa, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Shoniqwa’s stillborn daughter, Shataja. Finding that Collins had not shown good cause for her failure to effect service of process upon Dr. Toikus Westbrook, the Circuit Court granted Westbrook’s motion to dismiss. Collins appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Collins petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court held that Collins offered uncontradicted proof of “good cause” in explanation of her failure to serve process upon Dr. Toikus Westbrook within 120 days of having filed a civil complaint as required by Rule 4(h) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Collins established “excusable neglect,” as contemplated by Rule 6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, entitling her to an extension of time in which to serve process upon Westbrook. The judgments of the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals were reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Collins v. Westbrook" on Justia Law

John Hale was convicted on four counts of sale or transfer of a controlled substance and was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a total of sixteen years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Hale argued that the trial court erred in denying his proffered jury instructions on the defenses of involuntary intoxication and entrapment. Hale also filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he raises various other issues. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Hale’s convictions and sentences. View "Hale v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This consolidated appeal stemmed from the Mississippi Public Service Commission’s grant of a rate increase to Mississippi River Gas, LLC (MRG). The cities of Tchula and Port Gibson challenged the Commission’s authority to regulate municipally owned systems which had not expanded service beyond the area originally certificated prior to passage of the Public Utilities Act. The Commission determined the relevant statutory language exempting municipally “owned or operated” public utilities was ambiguous and that the Legislature intended to exempt only municipally “owned and operated” public utilities. The Commission also determined the relevant statutory language “extension of utilities,” which was an exception to the exemption, ambiguous, meaning “the total range [of coverage]” rather than an “enlargement in scope.” The Commission granted MRG’s requested rate increase. The cities appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that the Commission’s reading of two key components of the applicable statute was in error; the Commission erred in assuming rate-setting jurisdiction over Tchula’s and Port Gibson’s municipally owned, but not operated, public-utility systems. Further, the Commission erred in assuming jurisdiction over rates charged to customers beyond one mile of the cities’ limits when these cities had not extended their gas-distribution services beyond one mile of their city limits since passage of the Public Utilities Act. The Court reversed the Commission’s order on this narrow, specific basis and remanded this case back to the Commission for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. View "City of Tchula v. Mississippi Public Service Comm'n" on Justia Law

In February 2012, the Adams County Sheriff’s Department recovered three firearms from the trunk of Verenzo Green’s vehicle during an inventory search of the vehicle. A grand jury indicted Green and, following a trial in the Adams County Circuit Court, a jury convicted Green of three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of trafficking a firearm. The Court of Appeals affirmed Green’s convictions and sentences, and Green appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds of an alleged double jeopardy violation first raised sua sponte in a dissent by the Court of Appeals using the plain error doctrine. The Supreme Court found that the principle of law argued by Green, which he adopted from the Court of Appeals dissent, was not appropriate for plain error review. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "Green v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Lester Moore was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for felony shoplifting. He appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moore v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Shunbrica Roby of deliberate-design murder, and the trial judge sentenced her to life in prison. Roby appealed, arguing: (1) that the State’s evidence was legally insufficient and that her conviction was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; (2) that her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated; and (3) that the trial court erred in granting and/or refusing several jury instructions. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the jury-instruction issue. View "Roby v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Billy Bradley waited until 2014 to file suit against his court-appointed counsel from a 2004 proceeding. Bradley alleged negligence against his representative, Earl Jordan, which resulted in his injury (wrongful incarceration). Jordan filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the statute of limitations had run on any claims Bradley may have had as to Jordan’s negligence or professional malpractice. The trial court entered judgment in Jordan’s favor, finding that Bradley’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bradley appealed. Finding that Bradley’s claims were time-barred, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. View "Bradley v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Bobby Batiste was convicted of capital murder with the underlying felony of robbery and was sentenced to death. On appeal of that sentence, Batiste raised sixteen issues. The Supreme Court addressed one: whether certain statements alleged to have been made by bailiffs to jurors, violated Batiste's constitutional right to an impartial jury. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Batiste made a substantial showing of a denial of a state or federal right sufficient to entitle him to a hearing to enable the circuit court to ascertain what communications were had between bailiffs and/or other persons and the jury and to determine, insofar as was possible, what impact, if any, those communications had on Batiste’s conviction and sentence. The Court granted Batiste’s motion for leave to file his petition for post-conviction relief. View "Batiste v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Ike Thrash’s and Dawn Investments LLC’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP (DKS). The dispute underlying this appeal arose over the purchase of land at a trustee sale. Joel Blackledge, the acting trustee, prepared a trustee's deed in favor of Dawn Investments. Thrash deposited $5.6 million dollars into the trust account of his attorney, Charliene Roemer. The trustee’s deed was then delivered to Dawn Investments, and Thrash authorized the transfer of the funds. The former owner of the property, Coastal Land Development Company, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Neither Thrash nor Blackledge was aware of the bankruptcy filing, but William Little Jr., Coastal’s bankruptcy attorney, notified Roemer through email. Subsequently, Thrash and Roemer discovered that the foreclosure sale had been conducted improperly. According to statute, the foreclosure sale must occur one week following the last day of publication; however, the foreclosure sale was conducted one day after the last day of publication. Thrash notified the seller of the error and demanded the funds be returned, but the request was refused. DKS filed suit in circuit court against Thrash, Dawn Investments, and the seller seeking a declaratory judgment that the failure of Blackledge to conduct a foreclosure sale properly was not the proximate cause of Thrash’s and Dawn Investments’ damages. Thrash and Dawn Investments counterclaimed, alleging that Blackledge was negligent and breached his fiduciary duty by improperly conducting the foreclosure sale, leading to Thrash and Dawn Investments to suffer damages. The parties agreed to dismiss DKS’s complaint for declaratory judgment and proceed under Thrash’s and Dawn Investments’ counterclaim. The parties were realigned, naming Thrash and Dawn Investments as Plaintiffs and DKS as Defendant. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court granted DKS’s motion. The Dawn Plaintiffs then filed this appeal. The Supreme Court found that the trial court was correct in finding that DKS did not owe the Dawn Plaintiffs a duty. View "Thrash v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP" on Justia Law

Stribling Investments, LLC, sued Mike Rozier Construction Company, Inc., alleging negligence and negligent construction. The trial court granted Mike Rozier Construction’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Stribling Investments’ Complaint on the ground that Mike Rozier Construction did not owe a duty to Stribling Investments. Stribling Investments appeals. Holding that the trial court should have considered whether the "builder-vendor" rule applied to Mike Rozier Construction Company, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Stribling Investments, LLC v. Mike Rozier Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law