Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jairus Collins was convicted of murdering Ebony Jenkins. He appealed, raised several points of error, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. Finding that Collins’s statement to police should have been suppressed and that one of the State’s witnesses should have been qualified as an expert prior to giving opinion testimony regarding the locations of Collins’s and Jenkins’s cellular phones, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Collins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

On April 1, 2013, the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors resolved to issue general obligation bonds for various county projects. The Lauderdale County Chancery Court validated bonds. Several objectors appeal, arguing a sufficient number of qualified electors objected such that an election on the bond issue was required. The Board cross-appealed, arguing that the chancellor erred in not requiring the objectors to post a supersedeas bond. Because the chancery court did not err in validating the bond, nor in denying the request for a supersedeas bond, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In Re: Validation of Lauderdale County, Mississippi General Obligation Bonds" on Justia Law

Drake and Tonia (Lewis) Pagel were divorced in 2008. Drake filed an appeal challenging the chancellor's property division, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court, on certiorari, modified the Court of Appeals' order on remand. During the appellate process, both parties filed motions for modification of child support and for contempt. After the remand, the chancellor held a hearing and entered an order addressing the property division in accordance with the instructions from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chancellor entered a separate order modifying child support, finding Drake in contempt and awarding Tonia attorney's fees. Drake appealed all issues. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's findings on the value of Legacy Holdings, Inc. (a business the parties formed and each owned 50%), equitable distribution, and lump-sum alimony. But the Court reversed the chancellor's denial of Drake's motion to modify child support, and remanded for the chancellor to consider the impact of the removal of the loan repayment from Drake's income. The Court affirmed the finding of contempt and award of attorney's fees to Tonia. View "Lewis v. Pagel" on Justia Law

Appellee Adrian Shipman filed a Petition Appealing the Attorney General's Ballot Title for Legislative Alternative Measure 42A in the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The petition asked the circuit court to review the ballot title drafted by the Attorney General for the Alternative Measure, which the Legislature proposed as an amendment to Measure 42, itself a ballot measure proposed by petition of qualified electors pursuant to Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution. Although the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, as appellant, raised several issues, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the circuit court had no authority to entertain an appeal of the Attorney General's ballot title for a legislatively created amendment to a ballot measure. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment. View "Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Shipman" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol (MHP) discharged Officer Sammy Ray for falsifying official state documents. Ray appealed to the Employee Appeals Board (EAB). The EAB conducted a hearing and upheld Ray's termination. On appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed. But the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court judgment, concluding that Ray's due process rights were violated because the EAB's decision was based on conduct other than that for which he officially was charged. The Court of Appeals awarded Ray reinstatement and back pay. The Department of Public Safety appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeals improperly reweighed the evidence and failed to give sufficient deference to the EAB's findings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the trial court. View "Ray v. Mississippi Dept. of Pub. Safety" on Justia Law

Rosie Jackson was granted a divorce from her husband Michael on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment in 2012. After a trial, the chancellor found that Rosie had presented sufficient proof of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor then divided the marital estate and awarded Rosie lump-sum alimony. Michael appealed the chancellor's judgment. Michael raised three issues on appeal: "(1) the evidence was insufficient to support a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, (2) the evidence relied upon by the chancellor was inadmissible, and (3) the equitable distribution and the alimony award were based on incorrect calculations." The Court of Appeals affirmed. Michael then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, essentially reasserting the same claims he raised before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted Michael's petition, and limited its review to Michael's claim that the chancellor miscalculated the value of Rosie's equitable distribution of the marital estate. Finding that the chancellor manifestly erred in his calculation of the marital assets and liabilities, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the chancellor's judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Jackson" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal of the financial portion of a bifurcated divorce trial. When Tanya Dale Wright Sanderson and Hobson Sanderson married in 1994, Tanya signed a prenuptial agreement the day before their marriage, and upon divorce, the chancellor enforced the terms of the agreement. Tanya appealed, arguing the prenuptial agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. She also claimed, among other things, that the chancellor erred in not finding a joint bank account contained commingled, marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on its finding that the prenuptial agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. The Court reversed and remanded, however, on whether the prenuptial agreement was substantively unconscionable. The Court also held that certain funds, used for familial purposes, kept in a joint bank account created after the marriage began, did not fall within the parameters of the prenuptial agreement. View "Sanderson v. Sanderson" on Justia Law

Leo Brown was admitted to the Hattiesburg Health and Rehab Center (HHRC) in February 2012. His wife, Emma, signed an admission agreement both in her individual capacity and on Leo's behalf. Specifically, Emma's signature appears on a line just above the line: "signature of responsible party in his/her individual capacity and on behalf of the resident in the following capacity," where Emma circled the "authorized agent and/or health care surrogate" option. Leo did not sign the agreement. Her husband died soon after his discharge, and she brought a wrongful-death suit against HHRC. HHRC moved to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration. The trial judge held a hearing on HHRC's motion and denied it, stating: "I do not agree that [Emma] was authorized to sign on Mr. Brown's behalf, and I don't – I do not agree that it is binding on Mr. Brown." The trial judge later entered an order, finding again that the Admission Agreement was not binding on Leo. HHRC appealed, challenging the trial court judgment as to: (1) whether the arbitration provision contained within the Admission Agreement entered between Emma Brown, individually and on behalf of Leo Brown, and [HHRC] created a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate; and (2) whether the arbitration provision contained within the Admission Agreement entered between Emma Brown, individually and on behalf of Leo Brown, and [HHRC] was unconscionable. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Leo is not bound by the arbitration provision. And because that issue was dispositive, the Court did not address HHRC's unconscionability argument. View "Hattiesburg Health & Rehab Center, LLC v. Brown" on Justia Law

Nilene Junker was admitted to the Nichols Center nursing facility after surgery. Junker's daughter, acting with power of attorney, signed an admission agreement on Junker's behalf. The admission agreement contained an arbitration clause. While she was being put in a room, Junker fell and sustained injuries. Junker sued the Nichols Center, and the nursing home filed a motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court ruled from the bench without hearing arguments from the parties, holding that the arbitration agreement was not valid and that the "arbitration agreement must fail because it does not make provision for an arbitrator in the event the parties could not agree." The Nichols Center appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding the circuit court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration on the basis of forum unavailability. "The motion to compel asked the court to determine whether the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. The court was not asked to rewrite the terms of the agreement to provide for an arbitrator, but rather to compel Junker to comply with the procedures outlined in the agreement. There must be some attempt by the parties to select an arbitrator; then, if the parties cannot agree, the court may be called on to appoint an arbitrator." The case was remanded for a hearing on the motion to compel and a determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement. "If the arbitration agreement is valid, Junker cannot simply refuse to arbitrate." View "NC Leasing, LLC v. Junker" on Justia Law

In 2010, a George County sheriff's deputy attempted to pull over a Chevrolet pickup truck. The truck did not stop, and a high-speed chase ensued. In the truck were defendant Christopher Baxter and Brandy Williams. In an effort to apprehend the two, the Sheriff's Department set up a roadblock. The truck still would not stop, and Sheriff Garry Welford was run over and killed. Baxter and Williams were charged with capital murder and tried separately. Baxter was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Baxter raised several issues on appeal to the Supreme Court, namely: (1) that the jury was improperly instructed on accomplice responsibility; and (2) that the circuit court erred in admitting Baxter's involuntary, unreliable and coerced "confession." Finding no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Baxter v. Mississippi" on Justia Law