Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved fifteen years of litigation relating to two testamentary trusts. Plaintiff Veronica Baumgardner McKee Arrington (Arrington), claimed that the trustee of both trusts, William Ready, mismanaged the trusts' property, improperly allocated the trusts' funds, and wrongfully refused to render an accounting of the trusts' assets. The Chancery Court of Lauderdale County found that the trustee had acted properly and within his discretion in managing the trusts and that the trustee should not be required to render an accounting. Aggrieved, Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Chancery Court. "A chancellor’s factual findings will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." If Plaintiff's assertions were correct, then almost $225,000 difference between the chancellor's total and Plaintiff's purported total amounts to an abuse of discretion by the court. The Supreme Court noted that it was unclear from the record how Plaintiff arrived at her allegations. Accordingly, the Court found find that upon remand, a formal accounting of the decedent's expenses should be conducted and that her conservatorship should be reimbursed for any expenses relating to her care and maintenance. View "In The Matter of the Estate of Baumgardner" on Justia Law

Defendant Dennis Jerome Beal allegedly offered Lieutenant Tommy Jones, a Madison County Sheriff’s Department deputy, $10,000 in hopes that Jones could make Defendant's pending drug charge disappear. On April 28, 2010, Defendant was indicted by grand jury for bribery as a habitual offender. A Madison County jury unanimously found Defendant guilty of bribing Jones, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison as a nonviolent habitual offender. Defendant appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly permitted the State to amend Defendant's indictment before trial. Nevertheless, the trial court committed prejudicial error regarding admission of a videotape, as it became relevant to the case once the State opened the door by eliciting testimony about its contents. The Court found that Defendant's arguments regarding opening and closing statements and entrapment were without merit. Therefore, Defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed, and this case was remanded for a new trial. View "Beal v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

On September 17, 2008, Defendant Joshua King and Terrance Stanton were indicted for two counts of capital murder. Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial in July 2009. In 2010, Defendant was retried in the Circuit Court of Bolivar County for the deaths of Alfred Quong and So Ha Jung during the commission of a robbery. The jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and ordered that his sentences run concurrently. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court found that the jury verdict and life sentence in the custody of the MDOC should have been affirmed. View "King v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Jermell Victory was convicted for the murder of Darron Sykes and for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The circuit court sentenced Defendant, respectively, to life and ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant raised one issue on appeal: "whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant Jermell Victory's proposed jury instruction on eyewitness identification where said instruction embodied his theory of the case." Upon review of that instruction, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's proposed jury instruction. View "Jermell Victory v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County in which the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part the county court's grant of summary judgment for Plaintiff James Hobson, Jr. Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC, and Priority Trustee Services of Mississippi, LLC (collectively, Chase) appealed the circuit court's affirmance of their liability. Plaintiff cross-appealed the circuit court's order that vacated the county court's award and ordered trial on damages. The dispute arose from Plaintiff's purchase of real property at a foreclosure sale. He tendered a cashier's check to Chase's agent, for which Chase gave Plaintiff a receipt. Approximately two weeks later, Chase returned Plaintiff's check and refused to tender a deed to the property, stating that the foreclosure sale had been cancelled due to the original borrower's reinstatement. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, arguing that Defendants breach was grossly negligent, and requested actual and punitive damages along with attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the borrower's alleged reinstatement prior to the foreclosure sale created a genuine issue of dispute regarding Chase's liability, and, therefore, the Court held that the circuit court erred in affirming the county court's grant of summary judgment as to liability. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings. View "Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. v. Hobson" on Justia Law

Defendant Sylvia Montgomery filed suit against the Mississippi Transportation Commission (Commission) in the Circuit Court of Yazoo County after she was injured when her car struck a pothole in the northbound lane of Interstate 55 near Vaughan. The Commission filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was exempt from liability under several provisions of the Mississippi Torts Claim Act (MTCA). The court denied the Commission's motion. A three-justice panel of the Supreme Court granted the Commission's petition for interlocutory appeal. Upon review of the parties' briefs and the record, the Court found the trial court erred by not determining whether the duty to warn of a dangerous condition on the highway is a discretionary duty under the "public-function" test. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's denial of the Commission's motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mississippi Transportation Comm'n v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant Michael Kelly was charged with reckless driving, found guilty, and fined $114. Arising out of these same facts, a grand jury handed down a two-count indictment against Defendant several months later: count I charged Defendant with the aggravated assault of Tiffany Walker (by hitting Walker while driving his truck); count II charged Defendant with felony malicious mischief for the destruction of an outdoor ice machine. Defendant moved for dismissal of his indictment, asserting his double-jeopardy rights. The trial court denied his motion. Aggrieved, Defendant filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order with the Supreme Court. A three-justice panel of the Court granted Defendant's petition to assess his double jeopardy claim. Finding that reckless driving was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault for double-jeopardy purposes: "[t]o prove reckless driving, it is not necessary to prove the elements of injury or attempt to injure. Since each of these charges contains separate elements, the prosecution of [Defendant] for aggravated assault does not violate his double-jeopardy rights, and that contention is without merit." View "Kelly v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between the Third Circuit Drug Court and the Lafayette County Board of Supervisors regarding Lafayette County's alleged duty to administer the drug court’s funding and the drug court's having required that county to place a drug court employee on its payroll. Because Union County replaced Lafayette County as the lead county for the Third Circuit Drug Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Lafayette County Bd. of Supervisors v. Third Circuit Drug Court" on Justia Law

Defendants Arvind Kumar, individually and d/b/a Holiday Inn of Columbus, Tony Savage, and Tracey Savage appealed a circuit court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment which was entered against them based on a complaint filed by Plaintiff Shanna Loper. Before the complaint was filed, Defendants' attorney, Ed Pleasants, had written a letter to Plaintiff's attorney denying her claims. However, once the complaint was filed in circuit court, Defendants did not file a formal answer to the complaint. The only further communication Loper’s counsel received from Pleasants was a phone call stating that he would no longer be representing Defendants. After a default judgment as to liability was entered, without notice to Defendants, the circuit court set a date for a hearing to assess damages, again without notice to Defendants. The Court of Appeals found that, since Defendants clearly expressed their intent to defend against Plaintiff's claims, they were entitled to notice prior to the entry of the default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari. Finding that the circuit court's denial of Defendants' motion to set aside the default was an abuse of discretion, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Kumar v. Loper" on Justia Law

Pursuant to 42 United States Code Sections 2000e-5 and 1983, Appellee Shirley Johnson brought suit against Defendants the City of Belzoni, Police Chief Mickey Foxworth, and Officer David James. Appellee claimed she was sexually harassed at work by James for approximately a year. She reported the harassment to her supervisor Foxworth, but claimed insufficient action was taken to remedy the situation. The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury returned a unanimous verdict of $150,000–$50,000 against each Defendant, in favor of Appellee. Aggrieved, Defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. The motion was denied and the defendants appealed. Finding that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supported the jury’s verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "City of Belzoni v. Johnson" on Justia Law