Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tunica County Circuit Court Judge Albert B. Smith III acknowledged that he abused his contempt powers and exhibited poor courtroom demeanor in several cases before him from 2006 to 2009. The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance recommended the punishment of: a public reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and an assessment of costs totaling $100. Finding that We find that Judge Smith violated Canons 2A, 3B(2), 3B(4), and 3B(8) of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and, therefore, committed willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought the judicial office into disrepute, the Supreme Court accepted the Commission’s recommendation. View "Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Perf. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant David Trejo's conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, finding the State had violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The Court held that the arresting officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop that led to the discovery of cocaine; thus, the trial court should have suppressed the cocaine as fruit of the poisonous tree. While in its review the Supreme Court agreed that the officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle, the Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the stop was reasonable under the "community caretaking" function in "Cady v. Dombrowski." Finding the stop unreasonable under that doctrine too, the Court affirm the Court of Appeals' reversal of Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Trejo v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Frank Nichols, individually and as executor of Annie Hobson Nichols’s estate, petitioned the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County to remove his sister, Shirlee Phillips, and Kathryn Kennington as coadministratrixes of the estate of his other sister, Bobbye Brill. The chancellor denied Frank’s petition. The chancellor also found that Bobbye's will created a condition precedent, which Shirlee must perform in order to receive the residuary estate. Frank appealed the chancellor's judgment. The Court of Appeals, finding no error, affirmed the judgment of the chancery court which Frank then appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals and chancery court correctly awarded the residuary estate to Phillips, but that both courts erred in finding that the will created a conditional bequest. However, because "[a]n appellate court may affirm a trial court if the correct result is reached, even if the trial court reached the [correct] result for the wrong reasons," the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "Estate of Brill v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Following the destruction of their home in Hurricane Katrina, Michael and Mary Robichaux filed suit in October, 2006, in the circuit court against their insurers, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Nationwide) and their agent, Jay Fletcher Insurance (Fletcher Insurance). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including indemnity under the insurance contract, compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance of the insurance contract, attorneys' fees, and court costs and expenses for what they alleged were uncompensated, covered losses under their homeowners' policy. Also included in the complaint were claims of fraud and bad faith by the insurer and its agent. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Nationwide and Fletcher Insurance based on the Plaintiffs' failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the home was damaged by wind, which was covered by the subject policy, rather than its having been destroyed by flood, which the trial court found was excluded under the policy. Alternatively, the trial court found that Plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered uncompensated losses due to their having received compensation under their flood policy. Upon review of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiffs suffered uncompensated, wind damage to structures other than their dwelling, and to personal property. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View " Robichaux v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2006, a fire consumed an apartment building rented by Plaintiffs Paul Whittington, Jr. and Westbrook Cooper. Mr. Whittington died from injuries he sustained in the fire, while Mr. Cooper was injured but survived. The building was owned by Defendant William Lipscomb, and it was located on the same property as Mr. Lipscomb's residence. Plaintiffs sued Mr. Lipscomb and amended their complaint to seek declaratory judgment against Lipscomb's insurer, the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut (AIC), on the issue of coverage. AIC filed a motion to sever and a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. AIC filed two separate petitions for interlocutory appeal and requested that the Court consolidate the two issues raised in the separate petitions. After reviewing the complaint, together with the insurance policy and the relevant deposition testimony, the Supreme Court determined there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the issue of coverage, and that AIC’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. AIC was dismissed from the case with prejudice. View "Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lipscomb " on Justia Law

Roxco, Ltd. was hired as the general contractor for several public-construction projects for the State of Mississippi, including four building projects at the University of Mississippi, Jackson State University, and Alcorn State University. Pursuant to Section 31-5-15, in order to access the retainage on its state-construction projects, Roxco substituted securities valued at $1,055,000. These securities were deposited in a safekeeping account at Trustmark National Bank. Upon being notified of Roxco’s default, the State instructed Trustmark to transfer the funds from the treasury bills into the state treasury account. By letter, Roxco directed Trustmark not to transfer the funds from the treasury bills to the State’s account. Notwithstanding Roxco’s letter, Trustmark deposited the funds into the State’s account. Roxco filed suit against Trustmark for breach of contract and conversion. Trustmark argued that Section 31-5-15 permitted the release of the funds in the safekeeping account. A jury found in favor of Roxco and awarded $3,720,000 in damages. Aggrieved, Trustmark filed this appeal. Finding that the trial court should have granted Trustmark's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trustmark National Bank v. Roxco Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2010, sixteen death-sentenced inmates, including Steve Knox (the inmates), filed a complaint in the Chancery Court. The essence of their complaint was that due to defects in both the statutory structure and the performance of the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (MOCPCC), they were deprived of their right to obtain meaningful state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus review of their convictions and death sentences. The inmates requested injunctive relief against the State due to alleged violations of their rights to competent, appointed, post-conviction counsel. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. After a hearing, the chancery court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because the inmates' "attack on the death sentences and post-conviction judicial reviews of [their] convictions" was cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). The chancery court dismissed the complaint. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over the inmates claims because the claims were embraced by the UPCCRA. View "Knox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Meadowbrook Health and Rehab, LLC, filed an application for a certificate of need (CON) with the Mississippi Department of Health (DOH) to build a nursing home in Lauderdale County. The DOH staff recommended that the application be approved. Several surrounding nursing homes contested the application and requested a hearing. After three days of testimony, the hearing officer recommended that the application be denied. But the State Health Officer (SHO) disagreed and granted the CON. The contestants appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court, which affirmed the SHO's decision. The contestants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the SHO's decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the CON violates the statutory moratorium on new nursing home construction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the SHO and chancery court. View "Queen City Nursing Center, Inc. v. Mississippi State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance (Commission) filed a Formal Complaint charging Youth Court Judge Leigh Ann Darby with violating various Canons of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and with "willful misconduct in office" and "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute[.]" Judge Darby held a mother in contempt of court for disobeying her verbal orders pertaining to the house arrest of the mother's fifteen-year-old daughter. The mother brought her complaint against the judge when "she wrongly imposed sanctions against [her] for contempt of court without first affording her the due process rights required in a criminal contempt matter." The judge and the Commission jointly proposed a recommendation that the judge be publicly reprimanded and fined. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's recommendation, and ordered the judge be publicly reprimanded, fined $500 and assessed costs. View "Mississippi Comm'n on Judicial Perm. v. Darby" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Holliman was convicted for killing his wife. He was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing to the Supreme Court that the prosecutor in his case made an impermissible "golden-rule" argument to the jury and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury to disregard the argument. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutor's argument was a blatant violation, and the trial court erred in overruling both objections from Defendant's counsel. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Holliman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law