Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Broome v. General Motors, LLC
Paul and Terri Broome purchased a 2010 Chevrolet Equinox from a Chevrolet dealership in April 2010. The vehicle came with a three-year or 36,000 mile warranty. According to the Broomes, the vehicle had various defects which they attempted to have repaired through the dealership. When the dealership was unable to fix the defects, in December 2011, the Broomes filed suit against General Motors, the manufacturer of the vehicle, for breach of written and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act. This case was one of first impression to the Supreme Court: whether Mississippi Code Section 63-17-159(6) (Rev. 2013), the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, or Mississippi Code Section 75-2-101 (Rev. 2012), et seq. (the Uniform Commercial Code, the “UCC”) was the most analogous state statute to the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for the purposes of determining the statute of limitations for Magnuson-Moss Act claims filed in Mississippi. The trial court found that the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act was the most analogous state law to the Magnuson-Moss Act and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The Court held that Mississippi’s UCC was the most analogous state statute to the Magnuson-Moss Act. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the
plaintiffs’ claim.
View "Broome v. General Motors, LLC " on Justia Law
Posted in:
Products Liability
Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television
David Ashmore and his wife Debra sued for injuries they alleged resulted from a motor-vehicle accident with a vehicle driven by an employee of the Mississippi Authority on Educational Television. David sought damages for personal injuries that he allegedly suffered to his right and left knees, back, neck, and upper arms. Debra sought damages for loss of David’s services, companionship, and consortium; rendering of nursing care and services to David; emotional distress; and loss of enjoyment of life. The trial court dismissed the Ashmores’ claims with prejudice for willful discovery violations. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Injury Law
State of Mississippi v. Hattie Hawkins a/k/a Hattie M. Hawkins
Hattie Hawkins was a nursing assistant at Heritage House Nursing Center. Deserie Edwards, a resident at Heritage House, suffered injuries while under Hawkins’s care. An investigation revealed that Hawkins had lifted Edwards by herself, knowing that two people were required to lift Edwards. Hawkins then improperly placed Edwards into a lift/sling and left her unattended. Edwards fell from the sling and suffered injuries, but Hawkins did not call for assistance. Hawkins was indicted for simple assault of a vulnerable person. Several days before trial, defense counsel demurred to the indictment
on the grounds that it did not comport with Mississippi Code Section 97-3-7(1) and was an improper statement of the law. The circuit court dismissed the case saying the indictment failed to state a cause of action against the defendant. The State filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the indictment was sufficient and that the trial judge erred by granting the demurrer.
View "State of Mississippi v. Hattie Hawkins a/k/a Hattie M. Hawkins" on Justia Law
Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board
Shirley Adams and other landowners challenged a petition of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association that proposed amendments to Statewide Rule 681 which authorized the surface and subsurface landspreading of NORM as additional methods of disposal. The Mississippi Oil and Gas Board approved the proposed amendments to Rule 68, and its decision was upheld by the Chancery Court. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court found that the landowners failed to prove that the Board's adoption of amended Rule 68 was arbitrary and capricious or against the weight of the evidence. In addition, the Board's decision did not violate federal law or the landowners' constitutional rights; however, the Board violated state law when it exceeded its statutory authority under Section 53-1-17 by amending Rule 68 without gaining the approval of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, the Chancery Court's decision was reversed and the case remanded for review by the Commission.View "Adams v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board" on Justia Law
Tard v. Mississippi
Walter Tard was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to serve forty-five years, with ten years suspended and five years of post-release supervision, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Tard appealed a Court of Appeals judgment affirming his conviction and sentence, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by failing to review his entire videotaped interrogation and by failing to suppress his statement; and (2) the Court of Appeals erred by not reviewing the videotaped interrogation on appeal and by affirming the trial court’s judgment. Because the record failed to indicate upon what evidence the trial court based its decision to deny Tard’s motion to suppress his interrogation, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial.
View "Tard v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Downey v. Mississippi
Nancy Downey was convicted by a jury of burglary of a dwelling and first-degree and was given two concurrent twelve-year sentences. Following the denial of Downey’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions and sentences. In her petition for writ of certiorari, Downey argued that the trial court erred by failing to suppress her statement to law enforcement officers after she had invoked her Miranda rights. Finding that Downey’s constitutional rights were violated, the Supreme Court reversed her convictions and sentences and remanded this case for a new trial.
View "Downey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Pearson’s Fireworks, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg
This case arose from the City of Hattiesburg’s annexation of property in 2007. Pearson’s Fireworks leased land which was part of the annexed property for the purpose of selling fireworks during the Fourth of July and New Year’s holiday seasons. Prior to the annexation, the City passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale of fireworks within city limits. After the annexation, the City notified Pearson’s that it could no longer sell fireworks on the newly annexed land. Pearson’s then filed suit against the City. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, and Pearson’s appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.
View "Pearson's Fireworks, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg" on Justia Law
Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
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
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Mississippi Power Company
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
Posted in:
Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law
Mathews v. City of Madison
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
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law