Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Plaintiff Chris Snopek proposed working on the concept of a multi-use sports complex to be built on land in Madison. The parties collaborated over the designs and plans for the complex, and entered into a letter of intent. The letter of intent expired, but Snopek alleged that the parties continued to move forward with the project. Years later, Snopek contacted D1 TN, a Tennessee company, with regard to working on the project. Snopek introduced D1 TN to St. Dominic. In late 2011, D1 TN published its collaboration with D1 TN in the building of the facility in Madison, with no mention of Snopek (or his companies, Joshua Properties, LLC and Performance Sports Academy, LLC). Snopek filed suit against St. Dominic, D1 TN, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with prospective advantage, unfair competition, civil conspiracy and usurpation of business opportunity. On interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court, Snopek argued the trial court erred in dismissing D1 TN for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that personal jurisdiction existed over D1 TN, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order. View "Joshua Properties, LLC v. D1 Sports Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Workers' Compensation Commission dismissed applicant Matthew Ladner's petition to controvert and motion for payment of benefits because it found the statute of limitations had expired. Ladner appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Commission's decision. View "Ladner v. Zachry Construction" on Justia Law

Ralph Smith, Jr. appealed the circuit court's decision to deny his habeas corpus petition. After review of the habeas court's record and Smith's petition, the Supreme Court concluded Smith was not entitled to habeas relief. Therefore the Court affirmed the denial of Smith's petition. View "Smith, Jr. v. Banks" on Justia Law

Riverbend Utilities, Inc. challenged the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board’s decision to grant tow groundwater withdrawal permits to the Harrison County Utility Authority. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department’s decision. View "Riverbend Utilities, Inc. v. Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board" on Justia Law

Halley Smith appealed a Chancery Court order which held Smith was not a wrongful-death beneficiary of Justin Smith. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Smith asked the Court to judicially declare that an in loco parentis child qualified as a wrongful-death beneficiary under Mississippi Code Section 11-7-13. Finding that an in loco parentis child does not qualify as a wrongful-death beneficiary, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Justin Michael Smith" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal from Chancery Court, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff Ralph Saulters alleged sufficient ownership interest in a disputed piece of land to sustain his complaint to clear title to his alleged remainder interest; whether the various allegations in his complaint fell under the ten-year statute of limitations to recover land or the general three-year statute of limitations governing fraud; and whether the relevant statute of limitations had expired. The chancellor denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff's valid claims were not time-barred. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s holding that the claim to quiet title was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, because any claims for actual and punitive damages were barred as untimely, the Court reversed the chancellor’s holding as applied to plaintiff's claims for damages. View "Lott v. Saulters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Bre’Annah Banks, Ladarius Harp, Kimberly Norris, Zerlanzeia Lambouths, and Lakedrick Reed filed suit against the Sherwin-Williams Company claiming products liability and negligence. After both sides elicited evidence from lay and expert witnesses supporting their arguments, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment for Sherwin-Williams based on the plaintiffs’ failure to establish product identification, an essential element of their claim. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that, under the applicable standard for the consideration of summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to create an issue of material fact as to whether the paint in question came from Sherwin-Williams. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Banks v. Sherwin-Williams Company" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christopher Harrell of two crimes: felony murder, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Circuit Court sentenced Harrell to life without the possibility of parole and ten years, to run concurrently with the life sentence, for the possession charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions. Harrell raised four issues on direct appeal, but the Supreme Court addressed only two: (1) whether the circuit court erred in not instructing the jury on the elements of the underlying felony of robbery; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in granting the State’s requested flight instruction. The Court held that the failure to instruct the jury as to the elements of the charged crime deprived Harrell of due process in the form of his right to a jury trial, but that the circuit court did not err in granting the flight instruction. View "Harrell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Daniel Beasley appealed an Amite County jury's finding him guilty of murder. Beasley was charged in connection with the death of Janie Wilkinson in 2011. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict. View "Beasley v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Edward Cox appealed the Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a three-count indictment, which charged him with three counts of aggravated assault under Section 97-3-7 of the Mississippi Code. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the justice court’s act of revoking Cox’s suspended sentence for a prior misdemeanor assault and sentencing him to a six-month sentence barred the State from prosecuting Cox’s subsequent felony assaults. The Supreme Court held that Cox’s double-jeopardy claim applies only to his original charge, conviction, and sentence, but not his subsequent criminal actions. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Cox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law