Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sherry Walker was denied disability benefits by the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). The Circuit Court reversed PERS’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, reinstating PERS’ denial of benefits. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded PERS’ decision to deny Walker’s request for regular disability benefits was unsupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court reversed part of the appellate court's decision and reversed the Circuit Court's decision, and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in Walker’s favor on her regular disability benefits claim. View "Public Employees' Retirement System v. Walker" on Justia Law

The Securities and Charities Division of the Mississippi Secretary of State Office brought charges against Marshall Wolfe and Jack Harrington for securities violations pertaining to their operation of SteadiVest, LLC. The Secretary of State found that Wolfe and Harrington had violated Mississippi securities laws, and fines were levied against them. Wolfe and Harrington appealed, and the Chancery Court affirmed. Wolfe and Harrington then appealed to the Supreme Court. After review of the Circuit and Chancery Court records, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor did not err in affirming the Secretary of State's finding that Wolfe and Harrington had violated Mississippi Code Section 75-71-501. The Secretary of State's decision was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, did not go beyond the Secretary of State's power, and did not violate Wolfe's or Harrington's statutory or constitutional rights. However, the Court found the method used to assess penalties against Wolfe and Harrington was improper, and reversed on that issue. View "Harrington v. Ofc. of Mississippi Sec'y of State" on Justia Law

Dr. Adolfo P. Morales sued Jackson HMA, LLC., d/b/a Central Mississippi Medical Center (Jackson HMA) for breach of contract. A jury awarded Morales substantial damages. Jackson HMA filed a "Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, and, in the alternative, For a New Trial" and a "Motion for Amendment of Judgment." The Circuit Court denied the post-trial motions and Jackson HMA filed this appeal. In 2004, a recruiter for Jacksom HMA sent Morales a "letter of intent" outlining Jackson HMA's proposed offer. The letter twice stated that the proposed offer required "preapproval" by "Corporate" (HMA). Although not requested or provided for, Morales signed and returned the letter. On it he wrote "I agree to all and accept the terms of your offer." At trial, Morales acknowledged that this letter was not a contract, as it "no doubt" required preapproval from the corporate office. Subsequently, Jackson HMA sought approval from corporate HMA, but corporate did not approve the terms. Jackson HMA's CEO impressed upon corporate the need for an ophthalmologist and suggested new terms to corporate which reduced the guaranteed amount and period by half. The CEO received approval of these reduced terms from an HMA vice-president for the eastern part of the United States. Thereafter, the recruiter sent Morales a second letter detailing the new "terms of our offer" which reflected the reduced guarantees approved by corporate HMA. The letter lacked the phrase "letter of intent" and also made no reference to a requirement of corporate approval of the terms. The letter included the language, "[b]y signing and returning this letter, you will confirm your commitment to entering into a contractual agreement . . . . Accordingly we will begin the process of assimilating contract documents for your review." Morales signed the document, but approval never arrived. In early March 2005, the recruiter informed Morales that the contract had not been approved. In late 2005, Morales filed suit alleging that Jackson HMA had breached its contract with him. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Morales. Jackson HMA appealed. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that Morales presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that a contract existed. However, Morales presented insufficient evidence to support the jury's damages award. The Court affirmed the judgment for Dr. Morales, but reversed on the issue of damages and remanded this case to the Circuit Court for a new trial solely on damages. View "Jackson HMA, LLC v. Morales" on Justia Law

Illinois Central Railroad Company appealed a jury verdict for Perry Brent awarded under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for injuries he sustained during his employment with Illinois Central. While the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in failing to grant Illinois Central's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict on the FELA negligence per se claim, the Court affirmed the jury's general verdict based on Brent's FELA negligence claim. View "Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Brent" on Justia Law

Regina Dees was convicted of arson and insurance fraud. For arson, the circuit court sentenced Dees to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with two years to serve and eight years suspended, with three years on post-release supervision. For insurance fraud, the court sentenced Dees to two years to run concurrently with the arson sentence. Dees appealed the convictions and sentences, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both convictions. Because the evidence sufficiently supported the convictions, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dees v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Circuit Court imposed a joint and several monetary sanction for "intentional discovery violations" against Eaton Corporation, its Mississippi attorney, Michael Allred, and two Wisconsin attorneys for Eaton, Michael H. Schaalman and Gregory T. Everts. The circuit court also dismissed with prejudice all of Eaton's claims against Frisby Aerospace and related parties, for "improper ex parte and fraudulent contacts" between attorney Ed Peters and then-presiding Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Eaton and Allred appealed the monetary sanction. Eaton also appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit against Frisby. The matter stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit in which Eaton Corporation (Eaton), represented by Allred, alleged six engineers formerly employed by Eaton and subsequently hired by Frisby in 2001 had stolen proprietary information and trade secrets from Eaton. Frisby filed a countersuit against Eaton, alleging, inter alia, defamation. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's imposition of monetary sanctions for discovery abuses and its decision to dismiss Eaton's claims against Frisby. View "Eaton Corporation v. Frisby" on Justia Law

In a custody dispute between the natural father and the maternal grandmother, the chancellor granted custody to the father, finding that the father had not deserted his child. Although the grandmother had stood in loco parentis to the child since the mother’s death, the chancellor correctly recognized that this alone could not overcome the natural-parent presumption. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court's judgment. View "Davis v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

Lee Darrell Nix appealed a Court of Appeals judgment affirming the Circuit Court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). Nix was convicted of touching a child for lustful purposes and kidnapping. His conviction was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court on direct appeal. On PCR, Nix argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential element of the crime. The Supreme Court concluded that Nix failed to carry his burden showing he was entitled to relief. As such, the trial court did not err in denying his petition. View "Nix v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Two vehicles struck multi-ton counterweights owned by Mitchell Crane Services, Inc., which were on a traveled portion of a highway. The accident occurred in 1999, at night. The occupants of the two vehicles sued Mitchell Crane. During the liability phase of a bifurcated trial, the jury found that a thief was seventy-five percent responsible, and Mitchell Crane was twenty-five percent responsible for any damages. The trial court denied Mitchell Crane’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). At the conclusion of the damages trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Patricia Page and the other plaintiffs. Mitchell Crane renewed its motion for JNOV, which was denied. Mitchell Crane appealed, and Page cross-appealed. Given a jury finding that a thief stole the truck, the trial court erred by not applying our controlling law and granting Mitchell Crane’s original motion for JNOV. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment. View "Mitchell Crane Services, Inc. v. Page" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a civil suit brought by the estates and wrongful-death beneficiaries of Christopher Allan Bloodworth, Steven Earl Tallant Jr., Marcus Richardson, and A.W. Hilson, four men killed at a railroad crossing when a freight train collided with the truck in which they were traveling. The beneficiaries of Bloodworth, Tallant, Richardson, and Hilson filed their complaint(s) against Illinois Central Railroad Company and several of its employees, including the track crew, as well as other employees of Illinois Central’s track department. Defendants filed two motions for summary judgment; the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims alleging negligent operation of the train. The circuit court also granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on three of four contested issues regarding the engineering and maintenance of the railroad crossing, leaving one surviving claim. The circuit court then granted five of Defendants’ motions in limine to exclude Plaintiffs’ evidence. Finding that, without the excluded evidence, Plaintiffs could not support the remaining claim, the circuit court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in their entirety and issued a judgment and certificate pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decisions to the Supreme Court, and Defendants cross-appealed as to certain trial court rulings. Because the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on each claim by Plaintiffs, the Court dismissed Defendants’ cross-appeal as moot. View "Estate of Bloodworth v. Illinois Central Railroad Company" on Justia Law