Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because of insufficient service of process. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, even though service of process was improper, good cause existed and the action should not have been dismissed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the plaintiff never raised the issue at trial. Because the Court found it was improper to raise this issue for the first time on appeal, it reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. View "Lewis v. Forest Family Practice Clinic, P.A." on Justia Law

In 1987, Johnny Ray Magee was convicted of robbing a liquor store and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 1989 and dismissed his motion for post-conviction relief in 1992. In 2010, the Court granted Magee’s request to amend his PCR on the basis of his claim of newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct. The Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing to consider this new evidence. The judge found that, when the prospective jurors were asked whether any of them had family or close friends in law enforcement, a juror’s failure to disclose her belief that a local deputy sheriff was her fourth cousin did not amount to juror misconduct and did not prejudice jury selection. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issues of whether the circuit court erred in finding no juror misconduct and whether the circuit court violated Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court by allowing the last-minute testimony of a witness at the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief, finding that no juror misconduct occurred and that, even if a violation of Rule 9.04 occurred, the error was harmless and the issue was waived due to lack of a defense request for a continuance or mistrial. View "Magee v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Gloria Richmond Jackson appealed the Circuit Court Special Judge’s dismissal with prejudice of her petition for judicial review of an election contest, which contested the result of a Democratic primary runoff election. Jackson’s petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because she failed to attach two attorney certificates to her petition, as required by statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special judge erred by dismissing Jackson’s petition with prejudice for the nonmerits issue of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice was vacated and the case remanded back to the circuit court special judge with instruction to enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice. View "Jackson v. Bell" on Justia Law

The chancery court found that certain property once owned by Gocher and Reba Morrow vested in their estates at the time of their deaths and passed by intestate succession in equal shares to their three sons, Phillip, Ronald, and Joel. Phillip appealed, arguing that he held a remainder interest and the property vested in him at his parents’ death. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court found that the chancery court erred by not quieting and confirming title to the property in Phillip, and reversed the Court of Appeals and the chancery court. View "Morrow v. Morrow" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiffs S. Lavon Evans Jr. and his companies S. Lavon Evans Jr. Operating Company, Inc.; S. Lavon Evans Jr. Drilling Ventures, LLC; and E & D Services, Inc. sued Defendants the law firm of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, and one of its partners, Joel Held. The complaint also named as defendants Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC, and its related subsidiaries S. Lavon Evans Operating Texas, LLC, and E & D Drilling Services, LLC. Plaintiffs listed seven causes of action in the complaint: counts one and seven charged the Baker Defendants with legal malpractice and breach of contract; counts two through six charged all the defendants with breach of fiduciary duty, negligent omission and misstatements of material facts, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, tortious interference, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC; S. Lavon Evans Operating Texas, LLC; and E&D Drilling Services filed a cross-claim against the Baker Defendants claiming legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. Evans asserted that in 2007, he lost access to his companies’ two largest assets (two oil drilling rigs) and was sued in Texas by the Baker Defendants on behalf of Reed Cagle (Evans’s business partner), who was acting on behalf of Laredo Energy Holdings, LLC. This triggered a flurry of liens and suits by vendors against Evans and his companies – all because, as Evans claims - he made decisions and entered agreements based on advice and recommendations from the Baker Defendants, who Evans believed to be his lawyers. Evans claimed that his businesses once were worth more than $50 million but now were accountable for debts exceeding $31 million as a result of the conduct by the Baker Defendants. The Mississippi case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict of $103,400,000 in actual damages for Plaintiffs and Cross-Plaintiffs. S. Lavon Evans Jr. was awarded $1 million from defendant Joel Held and $30 million from Baker & McKenzie. S. Lavon Evans Operating Company, Inc., was awarded $1 million from Joel Held and $29 million from Baker & McKenzie. E&D Services, LLC, was awarded $1 million from Joel Held and $19 million from Baker & McKenzie. The jury also assessed Evans, individually, with ten-percent comparative fault. And the trial court reduced the $31 million amount awarded to Evans, individually, by ten percent. The Cross-Plaintiffs were separately awarded $22.4 million from Joel Held and Baker & McKenzie, collectively. A divided jury awarded $75,000 in punitive damages to Plaintiffs and $75,000 in punitive damages to Cross-Plaintiffs. The trial court denied the Baker Defendants’ post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur. This appeal followed. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed as to the Baker Defendants’ liability. But because the Court found the jury was not properly instructed, it reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on proximate cause and damages. View "Baker & McKenzie, LLP v. Evans, Jr." on Justia Law

Three motorists sued the Mississippi Department of Transportation after their vehicles collided with a pine tree that had fallen across the highway. The Department filed a motion to dismiss asserting immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The motorists appealed. Finding that the Department’s motion to dismiss should not have been granted, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "Little v. Mississippi Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Following his convictions for one count of sexual battery and three counts of gratification of lust, Joe Earl Cole argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay and evidence of alleged prior unindicted acts of sexual misconduct with two of his minor granddaughters. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cole v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal stemmed from a circuit court's denial of Robert Germany’s motion to sever and transfer claims filed against him by his wife, Ginger Germany, to their pending divorce proceeding. Finding that many of Ginger’s claims against Robert were either equitable in nature or were related to divorce and alimony, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and remanded the case with instructions to sever and transfer those claims to the pending divorce action in the Chancery Court. View "Germany v. Germany" on Justia Law

Rodrique Watson appealed his burglary conviction. When the victim returned home from shopping, she parked her car in an open garage, which was attached to her home. The applicable statute required the State to prove two elements: (1) unlawful breaking and entering the dwelling house and (2) the intent to commit a crime therein. At the jury instruction conference, the State submitted the following: "The Court instructs the Jury that 'breaking' as used in the indictment and in the Court’s instructions, means any act of force, regardless of how slight, which is necessary to be used in entering a building, whether the building be locked or unlocked; The Court further instructs the Jury that the 'force' used to enter the building may be accomplished through the passage of a door, which breaks the plane. Watson objected to the second part of the instruction as a misstatement of the law. The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury that breaking the plane of a door satisfied the force element of burglary of a dwelling. Therefore, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Watson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on local ad valorem taxes on real estate developments that use federal tax credits to construct and maintain restrictive properties that rent only to lower-income households. Specifically, the question was whether local governments could include the value of federal tax credits in their valuation of the properties for tax assessment purposes. The Court held that Mississippi Code Section 27-35-50(4)(d) prohibits them from doing so. View "Willow Bend Estates, LLC v. Humphries County Board of Supervisors " on Justia Law