Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John and Cindy Henderson filed suit against Copper Ridge Homes (“Copper Ridge”) and First Bank regarding the construction of their new home in Magnolia, Mississippi. The case quickly spiraled into foreclosure proceedings upon the Hendersons’ defaulting on their loan with First Bank. The judge granted First Bank’s motion for judicial foreclosure. After that, the Hendersons unsuccessfully moved multiple times to amend their complaint to add wrongful foreclosure. The judge granted Copper Ridge’s and First Bank’s motions for summary judgment on the Hendersons’ claims, finding that the claims, which arose from the alleged faulty construction of the house traveled with the title to the property. Because the Hendersons no longer owned any interest in the house and land, the judge found that they had lost their right to seek damages. On appeal, the Hendersons argued the trial court erred by granting First Bank a judicial foreclosure, by granting Copper Ridge’s and First Bank’s motions for summary judgment, and by denying their motions for leave to amend and to add wrongful foreclosure to their complaint. Finding that the trial court erred in granting Copper Ridge’s and First Bank’s post-foreclosure motions for dismissal of the Hendersons’ claims, The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the grant of judicial foreclosure, reversed the grant of summary judgment to both parties, and remanded the case to the trial court for determination of the Hendersons’ claims. View "Henderson v. Copper Ridge Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Dr. Roger Weiner brought a malicious-prosecution claim against Health Management Associates Inc. and Teena Rowe. Weiner was prosecuted in federal district court for violating the Mann Act; he sought dismissal of the charges, alleging that the interstate-commerce element was not met. The district court dismissed the charges for lack of federal jurisdiction, stating that “the federal nexus to interstate commerce necessary to create federal jurisdiction simply is not present in the case at bar.” The order stated that dismissal was jurisdictional and that “[i]n this case the court is not ruling on whether prostitution was never discussed and would never have been engaged in. If state or local prosecutorial authorities want to pursue a state law prosecution of solicitation of prostitution, that is their prerogative.” Weiner based his malicious-prosecution claim on the federal district court’s dismissal of his criminal prosecution. Health Management Associates Inc. and Teena Rowe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claim, arguing that a jurisdictional dismissal is not a favorable termination for the purposes of a malicious-prosecution claim. The trial court agreed. Later, with a new trial judge on the bench, Weiner asked for reconsideration. The trial court reconsidered and reversed the former judge’s order. Health Management Associates Inc. and Rowe appealed. After its review, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court, holding that it erred in denying the partial summary-judgment motion. View "Health Management Associates, Inc. v. Weiner" on Justia Law

Dorothy Smith sued her homeowner's insurance carrier, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”), after Farm Bureau denied her claim based on the earth-movement exclusion in the policy. Smith filed suit against her home builder, Larry Brown, d/b/a Brown’s Construction Company, and Farm Bureau after learning that her home’s foundation was defective. Smith filed a claim for the repair of the foundation. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. Farm Bureau then filed a petition for interlocutory appeal by permission, which the Mississippi Supreme Court granted. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred in denying Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment: the earth-movement exclusion was unambiguous and excluded coverage for the property damage suffered by Smith. View "Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Smith" on Justia Law

Claire Clements Flowers (Claire) and Brenda Jane Flowers Paixao (Jane) appealed a chancery court judgment denying their request for an accounting of the estate and testamentary trust of their mother, Brenda Bargas Flowers. The chancery court concluded that the daughters did not have a current interest in their mother’s estate. On appeal, the daughters argued that they were specifically named in the will to be remainder beneficiaries and thus have standing to request an accounting. The Court of Appeals found that Claire and Jane had standing to request an accounting from limited rights as holders of a shifting executory interest to prevent future waste. The estate petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, claiming that the daughters’ appeal was untimely and that the Court of Appeals misapplied caselaw related to shifting executory interests and standing to request an accounting. The Court granted certiorari not to determine whether the sisters have standing (because it agreed that they did), but to determine whether the chancellor abused his discretion in denying the sisters’ accounting request. The Court found no manifest error in the chancery court’s decision to deny Claire and Jane’s request for an accounting, and reversed that portion of Court of Appeals’ judgment. The Court reinstated the chancery court’s decision denying Claire and Jane’s request for an accounting. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Brenda Louise Bargas Flowers" on Justia Law

In 2013, Lauderdale County contracted with roofing company Norman Enterprises, Inc. to repair the roof of the Ulmer Building in Meridian, Mississippi. George Waltman, a Norman employee, fell through the roof while performing work. Waltman sued Engineering Plus, Inc., the project engineer, claiming it should have warned him of the dangerous condition of the roof. Engineering Plus moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn Waltman. The Circuit Court agreed and granted summary judgment to Engineering Plus. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Waltman v. Engineering Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

Mary Edwards sued Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. (Coca-Cola), and Willie Lee, Jr., for back injuries sustained when, while shopping at Wal-Mart, she was struck by a cart driven by Lee as he stocked shelves with soft drinks. The Circuit Court dismissed Edwards’s lawsuit with prejudice after finding that she had misrepresented her injuries during discovery. Edwards appealed, arguing that her failure to disclose prior back problems in her discovery responses either did not amount to a discovery violation that such failure merited a sanction less severe than dismissal. Edwards also argued that, because no genuine issue of material fact existed about whether Lee’s breach of the duty of care proximately caused her injuries, the trial court erred by denying her motion for summary judgment on liability. Because the trial court was within its discretion in dismissing Edwards’s case on the basis of her discovery violation, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Edwards v. Coca Cola Bottling Company United, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Douglas Neely was convicted of resisting arrest and felony fleeing a law enforcement officer. The Circuit Court sentenced Neely, for felony fleeing a law enforcement officer, to five years as a habitual offender and, for resisting arrest, to six months, to run consecutive to the five year sentence. Neely appealed; his appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005), certifying to the Mississippi Supreme Court that, after examining the record, no arguable issues existed. Neely’s appellate counsel requested and was granted additional time for Neely to file a pro se brief raising any issues he desired to raise on appeal. Neely never filed a pro se brief, so the Supreme Court affirmed Neely’s conviction and sentence. View "Neely v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Eric Sharkey was found guilty of two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received three sentences—fifteen years for each armed robbery and ten years for possession, all to run concurrently. Sharkey appealed his convictions and sentences. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sharkey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal went before the Mississippi Supreme Court after a circuit court denied Defendants’ motions for transfer of venue and summary judgment in a silica case. On appeal, F&S Sand, Inc.; F&S Sand Abrasive Company, Inc.; Dependable Abrasives, Inc. (Dissolved); Mississippi Valley Silica Company, Inc.; Empire Abrasive Equipment Corporation; Dravo Basic Materials Company, Inc.; and American Optical Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) asked the Supreme Court to review whether venue was proper in Jefferson County and whether the claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The Court reversed the Circuit Court’s denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Defendants: the venue issue was moot because the claim was time-barred. View "F & S Sand, Inc. v. Stringfellow" on Justia Law

Timothy Hinton died from injuries sustained in a fall from a tree stand. At the time of his fall, Timothy was wearing a fall-arrest system which included a full-body harness, tether and tree strap. Timothy had purchased the tree stand and fall-arrest system from The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. (“TSG”), in 2009. C&S Global Imports, Inc. (“C&S”) had manufactured the items and marketed them to TSG. Pekin Insurance Company insured C&S at the time of Timothy’s injury and death. After filing their third amended complaint, the Hintons filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Pekin, claiming Pekin waived its defenses to coverage or should have been estopped from asserting any coverage defenses. Among other arguments, the Hintons maintained that Pekin failed to defend C&S, did not file a declaratory-judgment action and allowed a default judgment against C&S. The circuit court denied the Hintons’ motion. Pekin then moved for summary judgment, arguing the insurance policy excluded coverage for tree or deer stands and related equipment. The circuit court granted Pekin’s motion and entered a final judgment dismissing Pekin from the suit. The Hintons appealed both of the circuit court’s rulings. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the order denying partial summary judgment to the Hintons, the order granting summary judgment to Pekin and the final judgment dismissing Pekin from the suit. View "Hinton v. Pekin Insurance Company" on Justia Law