Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendants Pam Wood, David Wood, Justin Wood, Josh Wood and Jacob Wood filed an interlocutory appeal for the Supreme Court to determine whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying their motion to transfer this case to another county. The underlying case involved a car accident in which a question arose over who was covered by an insurance policy. Defendant Pam Wood applied for the coverage in Covington County; the application was faxed from an insurance agent's office in Covington to Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company's Rankin County office where it was approved. Safeway opposed the transfer of venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Safeway could not demonstrate sufficient facts to support that venue was proper in Rankin County. Therefore the Court reversed the circuit court's order and remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to a permissible venue. View "Wood v. Safeway Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Fifteen-year old Lester Lavon Parker, Jr. was convicted for the murder of his grandfather James Shelton. He appealed his sentence to serve the remainder of his "natural life." The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: whether the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs at trial; whether the conviction was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and whether the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. The Court affirmed Parker's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Parker should have been sentenced to "life imprisonment" or "life imprisonment with eligibility for parole." View "Parker v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether federal law preempted state law from taxing medical equipment sold to individuals covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan or its participating insurance carriers. The Court concluded that the state tax on Mobility Medical Inc.'s gross sales was not a tax on the Plan or any other health-benefits plan. View "Mobility Medical, Inc. v. Mississippi Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Leslie "Bo" Galloway was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder of Shakeylia Anderson. Galloway appealed to the Supreme Court, listing thirty evidentiary and procedural errors, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In an one-hundred page opinion, the Supreme Court took each in turn and ultimately concluded that all of Galloway's arguments were without merit. View "Galloway v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Forrest County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring oil and gas facilities located within the county be fenced in. Delphi Oil, Inc. appealed a circuit court order that upheld the Board's ordinance, arguing that the regulatory authority of the State Oil and Gas Board (OGB) preempted any local regulations of oil and gas activity. The Supreme Court found the state law did not preempt the local ordinance, and affirmed. View "Delphi Oil, Inc. v. Forrest County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Mari Lynn Hays (Alexander) appealed the denial of a motion for contempt and modification of alimony and child-support in her capacity as conservator for Lon Frederick ("Rick") Alexander, II, her adult son. In it, she sought unpaid alimony and child-support payments, and additional financial support from her former husband Lon Frederick Alexander. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion by declining to require Lon to provide post-majority financial support for Rick. View " Hays (Alexander) v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Tevin James Benjamin was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Benjamin was convicted for his alleged role in a failed carjacking that ended when an accomplice fatally wounded one of the victims. Benjamin appealed, arguing that his statement to police was taken in violation of his Miranda rights. Agreeing, the Supreme Court reversed Benjamin's conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. View " Benjamin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Frederick Griffin has sought to pass the Mississippi Bar Exam since 1992. Griffin appealed the failing result of his February 2011 bar exam, raising some issues surrounding his July 2010 exam. Griffin sat for, and failed, the July 2010 bar exam. Needing a score of 132 to pass, Griffin earned a score of 127.2 on the Essay Section and a score of 127.6 on the MBE, for a final score of 127.4. He appealed his score to the Board of Bar Admissions, which denied his petition. Griffin appealed the denial to the chancery court. The chancellor ultimately dismissed his appeal in March 2011, finding that it was moot in light of Griffin's choice to sit for the February 2011 exam. Griffin applied to use his July 2010 MBE score for the February 2011 bar exam. In response, the Board sent Griffin a letter cautioning that Griffin "should be aware that the use of this ‘below-passing' M.B.E. score could contribute to your failing the overall examination." On the February 2011 exam, he scored a 127.6 on the MBE and a 127.8 on the Essay Exam, for a total score of 127.7. He petitioned the Board for a review, and the Board affirmed his failing result. Griffin appealed the Board's ruling to the chancery court, arguing that the Board had raised the overall score required to pass the bar examination throughout the time he has attempted to pass it. Griffin alleged that the Supreme Court removed any minimum score requirement on the MBE in 1995, but that the Board's requirement of a score of 132 to pass the bar "has the effect of requiring 132 on both" the MBE and the Essay portion of the exam, essentially arguing that a required overall score of 132 is tantamount to requiring a minimum MBE score of 132. He argued that these issues have a disparate impact on minorities, and the Board is thus in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Griffin argued that the Board's grading and scoring, Rules, policies, and the "self serving statutes from which" it derives its powers have a negative and discriminatory impact on Griffin's ability to pass the bar exam. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Board's actions, which fully complied with Supreme Court precedent, were not arbitrary and capricious. Griffin did not allege a discriminatory purpose behind the Board's rules, policies, or actions. Thus, his Equal Protection Clause claims failed as a matter of law. Furthermore, the Court found that the Board did not require a minimum MBE score to pass the bar, thus Griffin's contention that it did was without merit. The Court affirmed the trial court in all respects. View "Griffin v. Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions" on Justia Law

Dwayne Boyd was convicted of the sale of marijuana, greater than thirty grams but less than one kilogram, within 1,500 feet of a school or within 1,000 feet of the real property of a school. He was sentenced, as a subsequent drug offender, to 120 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with sixty years to serve and five years of supervised post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Upon review of Boyd's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boyd's motion for continuance to secure new counsel on the day of trial. But the Court did find that Boyd did not receive timely notice that the State would seek a post-conviction amendment to the indictment and such action constituted unfair surprise. Therefore, the Court affirmed Boyd's conviction, but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "Boyd v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Charles Honeycutt was injured in an automobile accident involving a Mississippi state trooper. He sued the state trooper and two automobile-insurance providers, Atlanta Casualty Company and American Premier Insurance Company. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a writ of certiorari, seeking to appeal the grant of summary judgment for American Premier: (1) whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred by finding an insurance agent does not have a duty to explain uninsured-motorist coverage; (2) whether summary judgment was granted improperly. The Supreme Court found that, in order to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of uninsured-motorist coverage (UM coverage), an insurance agent does have a duty to explain UM coverage to the insured. The Court also found that summary judgment was not proper in this case. Thus, the Court reversed both lower courts' judgments and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Honeycutt v. Coleman" on Justia Law