Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Shirley Collins filed suit against Appellees-Defendants Koppers, Inc. and several others, alleging she was injured as a result of environmental contamination caused by a wood-treatment facility. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss after Collins repeatedly failed to comply with a court order to provide expert opinions that causally linked her injuries to the alleged contamination. The trial court granted the Defendantsâ motion to dismiss and awarded them attorneyâs fees. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it did not grant her enough time to respond to Defendantsâ discovery requests. âIt is obvious that the trial judge exercised considerable patience and restraint in dealing with the delays caused by [Appellantâs] counsel. The record is replete with examples of instances of the failure of [Appellantâs] counsel to abide by the orders of the trial court.â Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial courtâs ruling.

In September, 2008, after a jury trial, Appellant Timmy Harden was convicted of the statutory rape of his stepdaughter. In December, Appellant was sentenced to twenty yearsâ imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of post-release supervision, with five years reporting. Appellant appealed his sentence, arguing among other things, that the trial court should have granted him a continuance in order that he could obtain a mental evaluation to decide whether he was fit to stand trial. Furthermore, Appellant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. The Supreme Court was unconvinced that any additional evidence provided at the trial would have reasonably raised doubt as to the Appellantâs competence to stand trial. In addition, the Court found that the evidence did not âpreponderate so heavily against the verdict as to cause an unconscionable injustice.â The Court affirmed Appellantâs conviction and sentence.

The City of Jackson appealed a judgment made against the city for damages based on a police officerâs pursuit of a vehicle. The suspectâs vehicle collided with another vehicle owned by Eric and Kristina Law. The Jackson Police Department has a written pursuit policy which stipulates all police officers perform a balancing test when in pursuit of suspects. This means that police officers should weigh the immediate danger posed by their pursuit to that of allowing the suspect to remain at large. The trial court held that the officer acted recklessly when he pursued the suspect causing damage to the vehicle owned by Eric and Kristina Law. The court awarded each of the Laws $250,000. The Supreme Court found that the officer had violated the applicable pursuit policy by failing to weigh the potential harm to the public. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs ruling.

Sixteen former clients (Clients) sued two lawyers (Lawyers) who had represented them in a mass-tort litigation, claiming the lawyers had breached their fiduciary duty by prematurely settling their cases in order to maximize attorney fees. Responding to a motion for summary judgment, the Clients produced a witness who testified that he had worked for the Lawyers and had settled numerous similar cases for much more than the Clients received. The witness also produced a document he prepared that the Lawyers used as a settlement template. The trial judge found the witnessâ testimony and template were inadmissible as hearsay, and that the Clients could not prove they would have won their mass-tort case at trial in order to sue their Lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment against the Clients, and they appealed. The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by requiring the Clients prove they would have won their mass-tort case at trial. Furthermore, the Court held that the witnessâ testimony should not have been excluded at trial as hearsay. The Court found that the witnessâ testimony was offered to establish facts already in the record: â[w]hile those decisions may have been based on [the witnessâ] opinions at the time, the decision-making process and the resultant [template] wasâ a matter of fact. The Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.