Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The parties in this case agreed to a compromise to settle an ongoing dispute regarding the ownership of a company while they were actively litigating the issue. The general terms of the compromise were jotted down on a piece of lined writing paper, then submitted to the court with the understanding that a formal typewritten agreement would follow. When a dispute arose as to a provision in the subsequent formal version, the issue was submitted to an arbitrator. The arbitrator found the initial, handwritten agreement, which did not contain a disputed third-party consent clause, to be binding and enforceable. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the arbitrator’s decision should have been vacated due to his refusal to consider parol evidence of the condition precedent. Finding no statutory grounds to disturb the arbitrator’s decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and the arbitrator. View "Robinson v. Henne" on Justia Law

Defendant Jimmie Roach filed a motion for post-conviction relief, claiming he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and that a juror at his trial was exposed to extraneous information supplied by law enforcement personnel involved in his case. The motion was denied, and Defendant appealed. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. View "Roach v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Five years following law enforcement's seizure of three cars and cash belonging to Willie Hampton in conjunction with his arrest, Tunica County's petition for forfeiture was granted. Hampton appealed, arguing that the delay violated his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Appeals remanded, instructing the trial court to establish a record. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Hampton was incarcerated at the time of the forfeiture trial, and was therefore denied an opportunity to present evidence of prejudice. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "One 1970 Mercury Cougar, VIN #0F9111545940 et. al. v. Tunica County" on Justia Law

Defendant John O'Connor was indicted for two counts of gratification of lust. A jury found him guilty on one count but not the other. He was sentenced to fifteen years, ten served, five suspended and five years of supervised probation. Defendant appealed his conviction, raising two allegations of error. Finding no merit to either, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "O'Connor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Equifax, Inc. appealed the State Tax Commission's income tax assessment. Equifax contended its Mississippi taxable income was zero; after an audit, the Commission found that the standard apportionment method prescribed by regulation did not fairly reflect Equifax's business in the state. The Commission used an alternative method and then issued assessments against Equifax. After exhausting administrative remedies, Equifax petitioned the Chancery Court for relief. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Chancery Court did not err, and that the alternative apportionment method was not a violation of the State Administrative Procedures Act. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Chancery Court's judgment. View "Equifax, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

Honda Downs sued Dr. Peter Ackerman for her injuries after Ackerman rear-ended the vehicle she was driving. Ackerman admitted liability; the case went to trial on damages. The jury awarded Downs $20,000 but denied her motion for an additur or a new trial. Downs appealed, and the Court of Appeals found the jury's verdict was biased or otherwise against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The case was reversed and remanded for an additur or new trial on damages. Ackerman appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the additur or new trial on damages. The appellate court's decision was reversed and the trial court's judgment was affirmed and reinstated. View "Downs v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

Over two years after his trial, Defendant Patrick Coleman was ordered to a retrospective mental competency hearing by the Court of Appeals because he erroneously had been denied a pretrial one. Finding that the nunc pro tunc competency hearing did not adequately protect Defendant's due process rights, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate and trial courts' decisions and remanded this case back to the trial court for a new trial. View "Coleman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Natasha Graham for murder and conspiracy to commit murder for which she was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. Finding the evidence sufficient for the jury to convict her, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Graham v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ground Control, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Capsco Industries, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction and Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. The parties contracted to build the "Margaritaville Spa and Hotel" in Biloxi. The circuit court held in part that Ground Control's failure to obtain a certificate of responsibility rendered its contract with Capsco null and void. After its review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court agreed (and affirmed) that the lack of the certificate of responsibility rendered the contract null and void. However, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in part so that the circuit court could determine whether Ground Control was entitled to recover based on claims of unjust enrichment and/or quantum meruit. View "Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants Pam Wood, David Wood, Justin Wood, Josh Wood and Jacob Wood filed an interlocutory appeal for the Supreme Court to determine whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying their motion to transfer this case to another county. The underlying case involved a car accident in which a question arose over who was covered by an insurance policy. Defendant Pam Wood applied for the coverage in Covington County; the application was faxed from an insurance agent's office in Covington to Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company's Rankin County office where it was approved. Safeway opposed the transfer of venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Safeway could not demonstrate sufficient facts to support that venue was proper in Rankin County. Therefore the Court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to a permissible venue. View "Wood v. Safeway Insurance Co." on Justia Law