Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tom and Consandra Christmas own property neighboring an alligator-infested, waste disposal site owned by Exxon. They sued Exxon, claiming the alligator infestation was a nuisance. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Exxon, based on the statute of limitations and the prior-trespass doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded based on a factual dispute as to when the Christmases had learned of the alligator infestation. The Supreme Court found Exxon was entitled to summary judgment because it cannot be held liable for the presence of wild alligators on its property. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Exxon. View "Christmas v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a fee dispute between associated attorneys arising out of mass-tort cases in Copiah County between 2005 and 2010. The first appeal arose out of a joint-venture agreement between Don Mitchell and the law firm of Sweet & Freeese, PLLC. The second appeal stemmed from an alleged oral referral agreement between McHugh Fuller Law Group, PLLC, and the members of the joint venture. The appellants in this consolidated appeal challenged the County Chancery Court’s denial of their motions to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by Mitchell and the McHugh Fuller Law Group, PLLC. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Freese v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, thirty-two plaintiffs who signed delayed-deposit check agreements with Zippy Check Advance agreed that Zippy Check could pursue judicial remedies against them to collect the debt, while any and all of their claims would be relegated to arbitration. The circuit courts found the arbitration agreements to be unconscionable and denied Zippy Check’s motions to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to one version of the agreement and reversed as to the other. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that both versions of the arbitration agreement were so one-sided that they were substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgments of the Circuit Court of Clarke County and the Circuit Court of Newton County. View "Caplin Enterprises, Inc. v. Arrington" on Justia Law

Sixteen-year-old Bernard Taylor fired multiple shots into a car containing five people, wounding three of them. He was charged with three counts of aggravated assault, with each count alleging a firearms enhancement. The trial court denied Taylor’s proposed jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. Taylor was granted a self-defense instruction. The jury was not instructed on the firearms enhancement. Taylor was convicted of one count of aggravated assault. Taylor received a twenty-year sentence for aggravated assault and a five-year sentence for a firearms enhancement, to run consecutively. On appeal, Taylor argued that the district court erred by denying the assault instruction, and that the five-year sentence enhancement should be vacated either under “Apprendi v. New Jersey,” (530 U.S. 466), or, alternatively, under double jeopardy. Upon review, the Mississippi Court found that Taylor’s arguments were without merit and affirmed the circuit court.View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Ryan Abeyta of the murder of his mother, for which he was sentenced to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Abeyta appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a jury instruction on heat-of-passion manslaughter, that the evidence of deliberate design was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting gruesome photographs of the victim. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Abeyta’s issues were without merit and affirmed the trial court.View "Abeyta v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Brad Hardy appealed his conviction of two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and one count of aggravated boating under the influence of alcohol resulting from a boating collision. He was sentenced to forty-four years, with twenty-six to serve. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Hardy v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Gregory Hopkins was convicted as a habitual offender of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence as well as the admission of evidence of his prior bad acts. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Hopkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Charles Ervin (a convicted felon) of armed robbery and as a felon in possession of a handgun following the armed robbery of the Healthy Body Store. Police were able to identify Ervin as a suspect after his brother, also a convicted felon, pointed the police in his brother’s direction. At trial, the trial court gave a flight instruction over Ervin's objection. The trial court sentenced him and included a gun enhancement in the sentencing. This appeal followed. Because the trial court improperly limited the defense’s cross-examination of a key State witness, the Supreme Court reversed Ervin’s convictions and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.View "Ervin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Carla Darnell and William Duff Darnell (“Duff”) were married in 2004 and divorced in 2012. The couple had one child, a son, C.D., in 2006. While the divorce was pending, C.D. exhibited behaviors which may have suggested sexual abuse. Duff denied any abuse, and investigations by the Department of Human Services did not substantiate abuse. No charges were filed against Duff. Carla sought a temporary protective order and consulted with a child-abuse expert who determined that C.D. exhibited behaviors that were indicative of abuse. Carla sought sole physical custody of C.D. Instead, the chancellor granted physical custody of C.D. to Duff, stating that Carla had been the one pursuing the child-abuse allegations when it was clear that none had occurred and that the Albright factors weighed in favor of Duff. Carla appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the chancellor’s decision and remanded the case for new findings of fact and conclusions of law which take into account some of C.D.’s statements, which were not admitted at trial. View "Darnell v. Darnell" on Justia Law

Eric Moffett was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. Moffett was convicted of a savage sexual assault on a five-year-old girl, resulting in her death. Moffett’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court on direct appeal, and his motion for rehearing was subsequently denied. Moffett presented a motion, an amended motion, and a supplemental motion seeking post-conviction relief. Moffett's argument to the Supreme Court was focused primarily on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, but finding to merit to any of them, the Supreme Court denied relief. View "Moffett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law