Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) issued a subpoena to Pikco Finance, Inc. (Pikco), requesting documentation pertaining to Pikco's nonpayment of finance company privilege taxes. Pikco filed a petition to quash the subpoena on the basis that MDOR's ability to audit and tax under Mississippi's Finance Company Privilege Tax law was preempted by the National Bank Act. The circuit court granted Pikco's petition to quash, and MDOR appealed. The issue on appeal was whether MDOR's use of its statutory subpoena power in administration of the Finance Company Privilege Tax was preempted by the National Bank Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that Pikco was subject to the subpoena. View "Mississippi Dept. of Revenue v. Pikco Finance, Inc." on Justia Law

William and Sarah Smith are the grandparents of Jason Wells. Jason's mother, Tara Wells, is Sarah's daughter. The Smiths filed a petition for temporary and permanent custody of Jason. They later filed a separate petition for adoption and to terminate the parental rights of Tara and Robert Johnson, the biological father. The chancellor declined to terminate Tara's and Robert's parental rights but awarded the Smiths primary custody of Jason. In awarding the Smiths custody, the chancellor found that Tara had "by her long and continuous absences from [Jason] failed to exercise her parental rights and fulfill her parental responsibilities." He found that this had caused the Smiths to assume the role of parents to Jason for virtually his entire life and that the Smiths thus stood in loco parentis. The chancellor then conducted a best-interest, "Albright" analysis and concluded that Jason should remain with the Smiths. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the chancellor found that the natural-parent presumption under "Albright" had been overcome based on the doctrine of loco parentis (which would have been in error), or based on a finding of desertion by Tara which necessitated the Smiths standing as in loco parentis for Jason. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the latter and therefore affirmed the judgment of the chancery court. View "In re Smith adoption of Minor Tara Wells" on Justia Law

A Pike County jury convicted James Richard Conners Jr. of two counts of murder and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. The circuit court imposed two life sentences for the murder convictions and two ten-year sentences for the possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon convictions, with all sentences to run consecutively. Conners appealed, arguing that the admission of two forensic reports at his trial violated his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and constituted plain error. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to make a Confrontation Clause objection to the admission of the forensic reports, and due to counsel's failure to object to gruesome photographs and evidence of Conners's past criminal activity and gang affiliation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by admitting the forensic test reports without live testimony from the analysts who performed the tests, but that the error was harmless. Furthermore, the Court found that Conners did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, because he could not show that he was prejudiced by any deficient performance by counsel. Therefore, the Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "Conners v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Eastman claimed Mississippi Valley Silica Company, Inc. ("MVS"), the company that supplied sand to his employer Marathon LeTourneau, failed to warn him of the dangers posed by sandblasting. At trial, MVS requested a "sophisticated user/learned-intermediary" jury instruction. Although the requested instruction was an incomplete statement of the law, the trial judge refused the instruction for an erroneous reason and failed to instruct the jury properly on the submitted defense. The jury returned a verdict for Eastman, and MVS timely appealed, raising eight issues, including the trial judge's refusal to grant the sophisticated-user jury instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that issue dispositive, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Mississippi Valley Silica Company, Inc. v. Eastman" on Justia Law

Miramar Lodge Nursing Home (Miramar) was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Miramar at the time was located in Pass Christian, Harrison County, Mississippi. On January 5, 2010, Harrison County Properties, LLC, d/b/a Gulfport Care Center (GCC,) filed a certificate of need (CON) application with the Mississippi Department of Health (DOH). GCC requested the CON for the construction of a replacement facility and relocation of ninety nursing-home beds from Miramar to an area located in central Harrison County, approximately twenty miles from Pass Christian. Sixty of Miramar’s 180 beds were relocated in 2006 to Boyington Health Care Facility in Gulfport, Harrison County, Mississippi. The remaining thirty Miramar beds were the subject of a separate CON application, which proposed to relocate those thirty beds to Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Several nursing homes from Harrison County and Jackson County contested GCC’s CON application and requested a public hearing. On August 26, 2010, the State Health Officer (SHO), concurring with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the DOH staff and the hearing officer, granted GCC a CON for the construction of a ninety-bed replacement nursing home in Harrison County. The contestants appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court, which affirmed the SHO’s decision. The contestants the appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that: 1) DOH failed to comply with Mississippi law in granting the CON to GCC, as "GCC did not act in sufficient time to re-open Miramar under CON law"; 2) no actual need was demonstrated for the project; 3) no economic viability was demonstrated for the project; and 4) DOH failed to follow its own rules and regulations in granting the CON. Having found that the SHO’s decision to grant GCC a CON for the construction of a ninety-bed replacement nursing home in Harrison County is supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Hinds County Chancery Court. View "CLC of Biloxi, LLCv. Miss. Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Yeatman filed a motion for post-conviction relief in circuit court. The motion was denied, and Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant raised three issues on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) whether Defendant's indictment was properly amended; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to address Defendant's argument that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual offender because it was not stated in his criminal information; and (3) whether Defendant's sentence was illegal because his fine exceeded the amount prescribed by statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part: the Court affirmed the amendment to the indictment, reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief regarding his habitual-offender-status issue, and vacated Defendant's fine. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Yeatman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Darrin Wilson appealed his conviction on rape, burglary extortion and two counts of kidnapping. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, in addition to alleging procedural errors by the trial court. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found all of Defendant's arguments lacked merit, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Anthony Cuccia (Tony) separated from his wife, Julie Anne Cuccia after eleven years of marriage. At some point near the end of the marriage, Julie Anne began allowing rottweiler and pitbull dogs to live in the home. Tony disagreed with Julie Anne’s decision, resulting in a dispute that led to Tony filing for divorce. A few months later, Tony filed an amended complaint for divorce, adding that he was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhumane treatment. Julie Anne filed an answer and counterclaim in which she denied being guilty of habitual cruel and inhumane treatment but admitted that irreconcilable differences existed, arguing in the alternative that she was entitled to a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Tony and Julie Anne consented to an irreconcilable-differences divorce, but left equitable distribution of property, child custody, and alimony for the chancery court to decide. After a trial on September 21, 2009, the chancery court issued its final divorce decree and order, granting custody to Julie Anne, dividing the marital estate, and awarding alimony. Tony appealed the divorce decree due to the nature of the award given to Julie Anne regarding child custody, alimony, and equitable distribution of marital property. On appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned several of the chancery court’s findings and remanded the issues for reexamination. As a result, Julie Anne petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to review the findings of the Court of Appeals and the chancery court. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and reversed in part. On remand, the chancery court was instructed to determine the demarcation date for dividing the marital property, consider marital debt in that division, consider whether alimony was appropriate after making that division, reevaluate the custody matter, and craft an appropriate custody arrangement with the best interest of the children in mind. View "Cuccia v. Cuccia" on Justia Law

Defendant Ted Stone was convicted of the aggravated assault of Carolyn Stone for which he was sentenced to twenty years' incarceration and a $4,000 fine. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Stone v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Isaiah Robinson attacked Respondent Linda Knox in a Kroger parking lot, punching her several times and taking her purse. Claiming that Kroger had a duty to place an armed guard in its parking lot and that its breach of that duty lead to her injuries, Respondent sued the Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership and recovered damages. Kroger appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that unless Kroger was on notice of an atmosphere of violence in its parking lot, it had no duty to place an armed guard there. Respondent failed to present sufficient evidence on that point, so the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for entry of dismissal. View "The Kroger Co. v. Knox" on Justia Law