Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In a case of first impression, the issue this case presented to the Mississippi Supreme Court was whether money a corporation received as prepayment for future services was subject to franchise taxation during the year in which it was received. The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) assessed additional franchise tax against Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. for its failure to include a "deferred revenue" account, which represented money it had received through prepaid contracts, in its franchise tax base. Fishbelt appealed MDOR’s order to the chancery court, and the chancellor granted summary judgment to MDOR. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Fishbelt argued that the chancery court erred in granting summary judgment to MDOR and should have conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the issues presented. Fishbelt also argued that its "deferred revenue" account is excepted from franchise taxation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of summary judgment to MDOR. View "Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) audited Mississippi Power Company and assessed use taxes attributed to Mississippi Power’s purchase and installation of low-NOx burners. After unsuccessfully pursuing administrative remedies, Mississippi Power appealed to the chancery court. The chancery court reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of Mississippi Power. The MDOR appealed, arguing: (1) the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over Mississippi Power’s amended petition for appeal and review; and (2) (assuming the chancery court had appellate jurisdiction over Mississippi Power’s appeal) the court erred in finding the definition of “pollution control equipment” in Mississippi Code Section 27-65-101(1)(w)) was unambiguous, and failed to afford deference to the MDOR’s interpretation of “pollution control equipment” in Mississippi Administrative Code 35.IV.7.03(302). The Supreme Court found: (1) the chancery court had jurisdiction over the appeal; and (2) the chancellor correctly concluded that Mississippi Administrative Code 35.IV.7.03(302) was an invalid regulation. The chancellor further was correct that the low-NOx burners qualified for the tax exemption under the plain language of Section 27-65-101(1)(w) and the evidence produced by Mississippi Power. Therefore, the chancellor correctly ordered that the MDOR refund Mississippi Power the use taxes assessed on the low-NOx burners, plus penalties and interest. View "Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Mississippi Power Company" on Justia Law

Mark Matthews was convicted of simple assault and disorderly conduct in Madison County Municipal Court. The decision was affirmed on appeal by the County Court of Madison County and the Madison County Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals found no error and also affirmed. While the Supreme Court also found no error in the Court of Appeals' decision, the Court took the opportunity of this case to clarify the proper burden of proof when the "Castle Doctrine" is asserted as a defense. View "Mathews v. City of Madison" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a complaint charging Tate County Youth Court Referee, Drug Court Judge, and Family Master Leigh Ann Darby with judicial misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. The Commission and Judge Darby entered into an “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation” providing that Judge Darby had violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution, and recommended that she be removed from office, prohibited from holding judicial office in the future, and assessed costs of $200. The Commission unanimously accepted and adopted the “Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Recommendation.” In this latest incident, Judge Darby stipulated to multiple incidents in which she denied citizens their due-process rights. Between 2008 and 2010, she “unlawfully ordered the incarceration of” eight parents and denied each his or her “constitutional right of due process” prior to being “order[ed] . . . to jail for conduct allegedly occurring outside of court.” In 2011, three fifteen-year-old minors (two girls and one boy) were arrested by Senatobia police after a neighbor of one of the children complained that they had walked across her yard. Judge Darby, in her official capacity as youth court referee and youth court judge, but without authority of law, ordered that the three minors be drug-tested while in custody. Without conducting any hearings, Judge Darby ordered the minors to be taken into custody and transported to a detention facility in Alcorn County, Mississippi. Unrepresented by counsel and denied due process, the minors spent Friday until the following Monday in the detention facility. On October 3, 2011, the Tate County Board of Supervisors passed a “No Confidence Resolution” regarding Judge Darby. That resolution declared that it was not in the best of interest of Tate County that she continue in her judicial capacity and called upon the senior chancellor of the district to remove her from all Tate County judicial offices. Judge Darby was suspended from office for a period of sixty days. Thereafter, she tendered her resignation to the senior chancellor. The Supreme Court performed its mandated review of the Commission’s recommendation consistent with Miss. Const. art. 6, section 177A, Miss. Comm’n on Jud. Perf. R. 10, M.R.A.P. 16(a), and Mississippi case law. The Supreme Court concluded Judge Darby’s conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(8) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. The Court ordered that Judge Darby be removed from office, fined $1,000, and assessed costs of $200. View "Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Darby" on Justia Law

Marcus Wallace sought to run as an independent candidate in the June 4, 2013, mayoral election in Edwards, Mississippi. The Edwards Municipal Election Commission declined to place his name on the ballot, questioning the validity of certain signatures on Wallace’s petition for candidacy. Following an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and a granted writ of mandamus directing the Commission to conduct a hearing, the Commission again denied Wallace’s petition to be placed on the ballot. Because the Supreme Court agreed with the determination of the Special Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial District of Hinds County that the Commission improperly applied Mississippi Code Section 1-3-76 (Rev. 2005), and because the Court found Wallace’s name should have been placed on the mayoral ballot, the Court affirmed. View "Election Commission of the Town of Edwards v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Sam Woodruff owned land in Rankin County. He agreed to sell a part of that land to Rita Thames, his first cousin’s daughter, who was also a neighbor. Woodruff claimed that he agreed to sell Thames one acre from a tract of land for the purchase price of $9,750. Thames claims that Woodruff agreed to sell her 6.53 acres from a different tract of land for that amount. Woodruff claimed that Thames then brought him a blank contract of sale to sign, which he did. Thames appears to claim that the blank contract of sale included attachments that described the land; however, the appellate record contained no evidence of this. The trial court entered a default judgment awarding specific performance in favor of the Thames. Woodruff moved to have the default judgment set aside, and the trial court denied the motion, finding that Woodruff lacked good cause for the default and lacked a “compelling defense.” The Supreme Court concluded after its review of the trial court record that serious question remained regarding whether a valid contract existed between the parties, giving the seller a colorable defense. Because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the default judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for proceedings on the merits. View "Woodruff v. Thames" on Justia Law

In June 2011, fourteen-year-old Jean-ah Leon was seriously injured while operating a Bad Boy Buggy ( an off-road vehicle used for outdoor recreation). A year later, Jean-ah’s parents, Vincent and Mandi Leon, filed a products liability and personal injury lawsuit in Louisiana against the owner of the Bad Boy Buggy, a Louisiana resident. They also named the owner’s insurer, the Textron Parties, and several other entities and individuals. Within a few days, the Leons dismissed all parties except the vehicle owner and his insurer from the Louisiana case. The Leons filed suit in Adams County, Mississippi, against the Textron Parties and the others previously named in the Louisiana suit, seeking damages of “an amount not yet determined” but greater than $10,000,000. The Leons served that complaint and summonses on the Textron Parties through their registered agents in Mississippi. They amended their complaint, adding claims for gross negligence and punitive damages. The Leons did not issue new summonses to the Textron Parties with the amended complaint; instead, they sent copies to the Textron Parties’ headquarters by certified mail with accompanying letters addressed “To Whom it May Concern.” The Textron Parties’ attorney in the Louisiana case also requested and received a copy of the amended complaint by email. The Textron Parties’ answer was due thirty days after they were served with the original complaint. They did not file an answer to the original complaint or the amended complaint. The Leons then sought a default judgment against the Textron Parties based on the amended complaint. An entry of default and default judgment were entered the same day. The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review arose from that default judgment: the Textron Parties claimed that the default judgment was void and should have been set aside because they did not receive proper service of the amended complaint, they were not given notice of the default judgment, and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against them. Additionally, the Textron Parties asserted that a three-pronged balancing test for relief from default judgments required that it be set aside because they had a colorable defense and the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced. The Supreme Court held that the default judgment was not void, but it should have been set aside under the three-pronged test. View "BB Buggies, Inc. v. Leon" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Yeatman pled guilty to one count of simple assault on a law-enforcement officer and two counts of third-offense driving under the influence. Each of the three counts had a separate cause number. The Circuit Court sentenced him: for simple assault on a law-enforcement officer (cause number 2006-0161-CR), five years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 as a habitual offender; for third-offense DUI (cause number 2006-0327-CR), five years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 as a habitual offender; and for third-offense DUI (cause number 2006-0328-CR), one year imprisonment, four years of post-release supervision, and a fine of $100. All sentences were to run consecutively. Yeatman sought post-conviction relief from his convictions for simple assault on a law-enforcement officer and third-offense DUI. The trial court denied post-conviction relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Yeatman's petition for a writ of certiorari. Because, by statute, the fine for simple assault on a law-enforcement officer was a maximum of $1,000, the Supreme Court vacated the $5,000 fine imposed on Yeatman for that crime, and remanded that case to the trial court for a determination of whether the criminal information in cause number 2006-0327-CR charged Yeatman as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Yeatman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Alisha Vanwey pled guilty in 2007 to three counts of selling hydrocodone, and the trial court sentenced her as a habitual offender to eleven years on each count, to run concurrently, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Vanwey filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) arguing, inter alia, that one of the two prior predicate felonies listed in her indictment alleging habitual-offender status did not meet the requirements of Section 99-19-81. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision based on the finding that Vanwey's motion was procedurally barred as a successive writ and time-barred. After its review, the Supreme Court found Vanwey waived whatever contention she might have had with her habitual-offender status when she failed to challenge the sufficiency or validity of her two prior felony convictions and sentences at her plea hearing and then voluntarily and intelligently entered her guilty plea to three counts of selling hydrocodone as a habitual offender. View "Vanwey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Edward Myers appealed his conviction for the armed robbery of Gabriel Lewis. Upon review of the trial court record, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of a defense witness where there was no evidence of a willful discovery violation. Accordingly, the Court reversed Myers’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the Court directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether Myers’s right to a speedy trial was violated. View "Myers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law