Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A corporation settled its delinquent tax liability to the State of Mississippi by paying $100 million to the State, $4.2 million to a private charity, and $14 million to a private law firm hired by the Attorney General to pursue the claim. Mississippi's Auditor demanded that, because the $18.2 million paid to the private charity and the law firm constituted public funds, it must be turned over to the State. The charity complied; but the law firm refused, claiming the payment of its fees was not made with public funds and, in any case, the Auditor had waived the State’s claim. The Auditor filed suit and the trial court granted summary judgment to the law firm. The state Auditor appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that when the Attorney General pays special assistants, Mississippi statutory law requires that they be paid from the Attorney General’s contingent fund or from other funds appropriated to the Attorney General's office by the Legislature. Furthermore, the Mississippi constitution requires obligations and liabilities to the State to be paid "into the proper treasury." Neither of these requirements was met in this case. Neither the Attorney General nor the Langston Firm provided sufficient evidence to establish that the Auditor waived the State’s claim to the funds. The Court therefore reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pickering v. Langston Law Firm, P.A." on Justia Law

A corporation settled a lawsuit by agreeing to pay the State of Mississippi $50 million, $10 million of which it disbursed directly to outside counsel retained by Attorney General Hood to pursue the litigation. The chancery court held that the payment was proper. But because the law requires that outside counsel retained by the Attorney General to pursue litigation in "the state or federal courts" be paid from his contingent fund or from other funds the Legislature appropriates to his office, and because the Mississippi Constitution requires obligations and liabilities to the State to be paid "into the proper treasury," the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Attorney General failed to use his contingent fund. View "Pickering v. Hood" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was an appeal by the City of Cleveland of a judgment by the DeSoto County Chancery Court which denied the City's motion for attorney fees. The chancery court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the City's appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that, after the Court of Appeals rendered the underlying case and the Supreme Court denied certiorari review, the case was at its end. The chancery court did not thereafter have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding that the lower court did not have jurisdiction. View "City of Cleveland, Mississippi v. Mid-South Associates, LLC" on Justia Law

Carolyn Epperson filed a complaint against SOUTHBank in circuit court alleging that the bank had breached its contract with her by failing to give her the funds from certain certificates of deposit upon her request. The bank had denied Epperson's request because she did not present the original certificates. The trial court granted summary judgment for SOUTHBank, finding that contractual language required presentation of the original certificates for withdrawal. Epperson appealed the trial court's judgment, and the Supreme Court assigned the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Epperson. SOUTHBank filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Upon review, the Court found that the contractual language pertaining to withdrawals gave SOUTHBank discretion to require certain forms to be used for withdrawal, to refuse or restrict early withdrawals, and to assess penalties for early withdrawal. These terms were consistent and allowed SOUTHBank to require presentation of the original CD or CDs for withdrawal. The contract was unambiguous, and the trial court's grant of summary judgment was therefore appropriate. View "Epperson v. SouthBank" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn States was found guilty of capital murder for killing two people while committing armed robbery. Defendant raised three arguments on appeal: (1) the prosecution discriminated based on race and gender in its peremptory strikes; (2) the trial court failed to grant circumstantial-evidence instructions; and (3) the trial court improperly granted the prosecution a "flight" instruction. Because the Supreme Court found no reversible error, Defendant's conviction was affirmed. View "States v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Two appeals are were consolidated from chancery-court cases. In the first case, Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association, Inc. sued Thomas R. Alfonso, III, and Anne Scafidi Cordova,1 d/b/a Bay Jourdan Publishing Co. (BJP) for breach of a contract to publish "The Diamondhead News." In 1997, the chancery court entered a preliminary injunction order preventing BJP from publishing "The Diamondhead News," selling advertising, collecting or disposing of advertising revenues derived from the publication the paper, and interfering with the printing, publication, or distribution of "The Diamondhead News." The chancery court also found that an arbitration clause in the publishing contract was inapplicable to the lawsuit. The chancery court denied BJP’s two subsequent motions to compel arbitration of the breach-of-contract dispute. BJP appealed the chancery court’s latest denial of arbitration. In the second case, BJP sued Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a "The Sun Herald" (“Gulf Publishing”), for intentional interference with the publishing contract. Gulf Publishing filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Gulf Publishing and directed the entry of a final judgment as to Gulf Publishing pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). BJP appealed the grant of summary judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s order denying BJP’s third motion to compel arbitration because the issue was ruled upon previously, and no appeal was taken. Finding genuine issues of material fact for trial, the Court reversed the chancery court’s order granting summary judgment to Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing, and remanded the second case for further proceedings. View "Alfonso v. Gulf Publishing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this matter to address the specific question of whether the requirement to post a pretrial bond set out in Mississippi Code Sections 27-77-5 and 27-77-7 (Rev. 2005) was procedural or jurisdictional. If procedural, it would constitute an intrusion by the Legislature into the assigned powers of this Court and of the judicial branch of government, and a violation of Article 6, Sections 144 and 146 of the Mississippi Constitution. Having considered the issue, the Court found that it's precedent was clear: the requirement of a pretrial bond relates to appellate jurisdiction and is within the powers of the Legislature. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and of the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County. View "5K Farms, Inc. v. Miss. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

In early 2011, Defendant Jonathan Havard was convicted by a jury in George County Circuit Court for the deliberate-design murder of his girlfriend, Joy Hodges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant requested his conviction and sentence be overturned, or, in the alternative, reversed and remanded for a new trial. Appellate counsel filed a "Lindsey"1 brief certifying to the Supreme Court there were no appealable issues in the record. Believing otherwise, Defendant filed a brief pro se assigning error to both the trial court and defense counsel. The alleged errors include violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, his Fifth Amendment right to refrain from testifying, inadequate jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and failure to grant a change in venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed and found the allegations of error to be lacking in merit. Therefore, the Court denied Defendant's requested relief and affirmed the decision of the trial court. View "Havard v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Charlotte and Larry Wilson, parents of Crystal Wilson (deceased), filed an action requesting visitation with their grandchildren. The chancellor granted the request. Aggrieved, Stephen Smith, Crystal's former husband, and Melissa LuAnn Smith, Stephen's current wife, appealed the chancellor’s decision and challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi’s grandparent-visitation statutes. The Smiths raised four issues on appeal; the Supreme Court addressed each and held: (1) Mississippi's grandparent-visitation statute and the "Martin v. Coop" (693 So.2d 912(Miss. 1997)) factors do not violate the Constitution. (2) the chancellor did not err in applying the grandparent-visitation statutes, the "Martin" factors and "Troxel v. Granville" (530 U.S. 57 (2000)) to this case; (3) the chancellor properly applied the "Martin" factors; and (4) the Wilsons' visitation was not excessive. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's judgment. View "Smith v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A 2011 amendment to Section 71-3-51 provides that, "from and after July 1, 2011," decisions of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, rather than to the circuit court, as required under the previous version of the statute. On July 1, 2011, the Commission denied Petitioner Joseph Dewayne Johnson’s claim for benefits, so he appealed to the Supreme Court. The ordered the parties to brief two issues: whether Section 71-3-51, as amended was constitutional; and whether the Court had appellate jurisdiction over direct appeals from the Commission. Upon review, the Court concluded that Section 71-3-51 was constitutional, and that the Court had appellate jurisdiction over direct appeals from the Commission. View "Johnson v. Sysco Food Sevcs." on Justia Law