Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Taylor v. Mississippi
Michael Taylor was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years. In 2007, Michelle Finney arrived at a child’s birthday party and parked her car on the street, blocking Taylor’s car in a driveway. An argument and fistfight ensued. After bystanders broke up the fight, Taylor shot Finney in the arm and fled. Two days later, Taylor was at friend’s house when law enforcement officers arrived to execute unrelated arrest warrants. Taylor was detained after he tried to flee out a window in the back of the house. An investigator noticed a black coat on the couch, which Taylor claimed. Upon discovering a handgun and narcotics in the jacket, the officers arrested Taylor for possessing the narcotics and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Later that day, police obtained an arrest warrant for Taylor’s alleged aggravated assault on Finney. On appeal, Taylor’s counsel filed a "Lindsey" brief, stating that she had identified no appealable issues. After an independent review of the record and the briefs, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no reversible issues. View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Castigliola v. Mississippi Dept. of Rev.
Vincent Castigliola, a Mississippi resident, bought a yacht in Florida from Mark Fallon, an Ohio resident. Fallon, who is not in the business of buying or selling boats, sold the boat to Castigliola, who also is not in the boat trade. This transaction involved marketing services from Galati Yacht Sales, a yacht broker, which Fallon hired. Castigliola did not pay sales tax on the boat in Florida or use tax in Mississippi. Aggrieved, MDOR audited Castigliola and subsequently assessed use tax and penalties regarding the boat purchase, totaling $7,588. Castigliola challenged the tax, exhausted his administrative remedies without relief, and ultimately appealed to the Chancery Court. Before the chancery court, Castigliola filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the sale was a casual sale and therefore not subject to Mississippi use tax. The Court denied his motion, and Castigliola appealed. This case presented two issues: (1) who has the burden to prove use tax is applicable to a transaction; and (2) does the use of a broker make a casual sale taxable? The Supreme Court held that: (1) the Department of Revenue (MDOR) had the burden to prove that a tax applied, and the taxpayer had the burden to prove an exemption from tax applied; and (2) casual sales are excluded from sales and use tax in Mississippi. In this case, because MDOR’s argument for taxation was not supported by its own regulations and relied on an improper and erroneous application of Florida law, the Supreme Court found MDOR’s position was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, MDOR admitted the sale was from one individual to another, not in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the Court reversed summary judgment and render judgment in favor of Castigliola. View "Castigliola v. Mississippi Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
Boyd v. Mississippi
Tyrone Boyd was convicted under Mississippi Code section 9705033(6) for the exploitation of a child. He was sentenced to twelve years in prison with seven to serve, five suspended and probation. Boyd appealed that sentence, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Facebook and texts into evidence, and that the State failed to properly authenticate them (the evidence linking him to the messages at issue was not sufficient to prove that he wrote them). The Supreme Court found Boyd's contention meritless, as he failed to preserve his objections at trial. Therefore, the Court affirmed Boyd's conviction and sentence. View "Boyd v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Isham v. Mississippi
Jason Isham was convicted on one count of felonious child abuse. His wife’s two-year-old son, Tommy, was for a severe, traumatic brain injury, which caused severe swelling of the child’s brain, stroke, and permanent weakness on his right side. Because Isham was alone with Tommy when this occurred, he was charged with felonious child abuse of Tommy. At trial, expert medical witnesses for the State testified that Tommy’s injuries resulted from severe blunt trauma. Isham, who was represented by a public defender and a pro bono attorney, requested funds with which to hire his own expert to testify about possible alternative causes for Tommy’s injuries. The trial court denied the request. On appeal, Isham raised one issue: that the trial court erred when it refused him the funds necessary to hire an expert in his defense. In light of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s holding in "Brown v. Mississippi," (152 So. 3d 1146 (Miss. 2014)), the Court reversed Isham’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial in which the trial court must order public funds for such defense experts as are necessary for the accused to prepare and present an adequate defense. View "Isham v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Mine Safety Appliance Company v. Holmes
Thirty-eight years after going to work for T.P. Groome, breaking up concrete culverts with a jackhammer, plaintiff Huey Holmes was diagnosed with silicosis. In six years that Homles worked for Groome, he was exposed to dusty work conditions. Groome provide a respirator that was manufactured by defendant Mine Safety Appliances (MSA). Holmes testified that, although he wore the mask, he often ingested so much dust while jackhammering that his mouth would fill with dirt and his spit would become black. Holmes filed a products-liability suit against MSA, claiming, among other things, that the respirator failed to protect him from overexposure to respirable silica. Holmes was dismissed from the suit without prejudice in light of the then-recent changes to Mississippi joinder rules. Holmes refiled his suit against MSA on May 16, 2007. In its answer, MSA asserted that Holmes filed his second suit after the statute of limitations had run. This case was a direct appeal of the trial court's judgment awarding Holmes, $875,000 for silicosis-related injuries allegedly caused by the respirator. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling that the complaint was filed within the statute of limitations, and that Holmes was exposed to a harmful level of silica during the relevant time period. But the Court found that the trial judge erred in denying MSA’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) regarding Holmes’s warnings claim. Additionally, the Court found MSA was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law regarding Holmes’s design-defect claim because misuse of the respirator materially changed the product’s condition after it left MSA’s control. The Court therefore reversed and remanded on these issues. View "Mine Safety Appliance Company v. Holmes" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Injury Law, Labor & Employment Law
Chase v. Mississippi
Ricky Chase filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing that he was intellectually disabled under "Atkins v. Virginia," (536 U.S. 304 (2002)), and exempt from execution. The circuit court denied relief, finding that Chase had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is intellectually disabled. Chase appealed, arguing that the circuit court made legal errors and that its fact-findings were clearly erroneous. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Chase v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Lowndes County v. McClanahan
After the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors voted to abandon a railroad crossing, the county put up a barricade. Residents affected by the barricade filed two separate motions for reconsideration, and the Board held a second meeting in which it affirmed the abandonment but ordered the barricade removed. The residents filed a bill of exceptions which reversed the Board’s decision to abandon the crossing. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding it had no jurisdiction to hear the bill of exceptions. After review, the Supreme Court found that, although the circuit court had appellate jurisdiction to review the Board’s second decision, it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Board’s original decision. So the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed, and the case remanded for the circuit court to consider only whether the Board’s second order complied with the statutory procedure for abandoning a road. View "Lowndes County v. McClanahan" on Justia Law
Hill v. City of Horn Lake
The City of Horn Lake contracted with Phillips Construction Company and its owner Michael Phillips (collectively “Phillips”) to work on a sewer project. Two employees of Phillips, Bertram Hill and David Mooneyhan, were working near the bottom of a trench that was seventeen feet deep when the walls of the trench suddenly collapsed. Mooneyhan was killed, and Hill was injured. Mooneyhan’s beneficiaries and Hill sued the City for Phillips’s negligence under respondeat superior and also alleged that the City had negligently hired Phillips. The City moved for summary judgment on grounds: (1) that Plaintiffs contended that Hill and Mooneyhan were employees of the City, thus rendering their claims subject to the exclusive remedy provision found in the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act; (2) that Phillips was an independent contractor, not an agent, so the City could not be liable to Plaintiffs under respondeat superior; and (3) the discretionary function exemption of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) rendered the City immune from liability for maintenance of a sewer system. The circuit court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on all issues, holding that Plaintiffs had not established the City had more than a supervisory role over the project, that the City’s maintenance of a sewer system is a discretionary function, and that the burden under Mississippi Code Section 31-5-51(7) was placed on the contractor, not the City. Plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hill v. City of Horn Lake" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Injury Law
City of Magee v. Jones
In an interlocutory appeal, the City of Magee challenged the Simpson County Circuit Court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment against Connie Jones, arguing that Jones’s claim was barred by the discretionary-function provision of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). In 2007, raw sewage entered Connie Jones’s house through a shower drain and flooded several rooms of the house. In early 2008, Jones filed suit against the City and two unnamed defendants, claiming that Magee had negligently installed and maintained the sewage lines providing service to her home, causing the sewage overflow. Jones asserted that her family had suffered both property damage and physical illnesses as a result of Magee’s negligence. Magee moved for summary judgment, arguing that Jones' suit was barred by the MTCA's discretionary-function exception under Mississippi case law because her claim was based on acts of sewage-system maintenance. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in denying the City's motion. Accordingly, the Court vacated the trial court’s denial of Magee’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Magee v. Jones" on Justia Law
Woodall v. AAA Ambulance Service, Inc.
Cynthia Woodall filed this wrongful-death action against AAA Ambulance Service, Inc., and Phillip McKey, AAA emergency medical technician-paramedic. In 2010, Cynthia Woodall’s husband suffered a cardiac arrest while working as a heating and cooling contractor at a home in McComb. The homeowner promptly called 911 at 11:54 a.m., and the Pike County Civil Defense/Emergency Management Agency transferred that call to AAA at 11:55 a.m. Woodall alleges that AAA then failed to respond and arrive in a timely manner, and that the ambulance crew, including McKey, failed to follow established protocol for cardiac-arrest response and made minimal attempts to provide Mr. Woodall proper care. The trial court found that, because the defendant was an instrumentality of governmental entities, the suit was controlled by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. And because the plaintiff failed to file her complaint within the one-year statute of limitations, the circuit judge granted the defendants summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Woodall v. AAA Ambulance Service, Inc." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Injury Law, Medical Malpractice