Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

In this interlocutory appeal, Ford Motor Company (Ford) wanted to preserve a confidential settlement agreement between it and the Estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries of Brian Cole (the Coles). The case on appeal was a separate action between the Coles, their attorneys, and among the attorneys themselves regarding expenses, a contingency-fee agreement, and a fee-sharing agreement. The chancellor denied Ford's motion and its "Notice of Intent to Seek Closure of Proceedings and Sealing of Documents." Before the Supreme Court, Ford raised three issues: (1) whether the settlement agreement was a public, judicial record or a private contract, which should be enforced; (2) whether the state's policy encouraging settlement agreements and the parties' interest in abiding by the terms of that agreement were sufficient grounds to protect the settlement from public scrutiny; and (3) whether there was any overriding public interest which would require disclosure of the terms of the settlement agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the settlement agreement was between private parties, did not involve issues of public concern, and was unnecessary to resolve the parties' disputes. Thus, the Court concluded that chancery court erred, in part, by denying Ford's motions. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Brian Cole" on Justia Law

Ahmad Butler was convicted of manslaughter by a jury for which he was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Butler appealed, claiming that pretrial photo lineups were overly suggestive, that identifications were unreliable, and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a new trial. Finding that Butler's arguments were without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction and Butler's sentence. View "Butler v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

James A. Burley filed a wrongful-death action on June 7, 2004, for the deaths of his daughter and grandchildren resulting from a vehicular accident between his daughter and an employee of Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association (collectively "YVEPA"). During the course of discovery, YVEPA attempted to determine whether Burley would support his theory of liability with expert testimony. Following two motions to compel for Rule 26(b)(4)1 disclosures, Burley's withdrawal of his liability expert, the close of discovery, and four trial settings, Burley supplemented his interrogatory response with a new liability expert on October 7, 2010. YVEPA then moved to strike Burley's designation as untimely and substantively insufficient. The trial court allowed the designation and moved the trial to its fifth setting. Aggrieved by the trial court's order, YVEPA filed an interlocutory appeal. Finding the trial court abused its discretion, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a trial without the plaintiffs' expert testimony on liability. View "Douglas v. Burley" on Justia Law

In this sexual-harassment, due-process, gender-discrimination, and retaliation case, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether the Circuit Court of Forrest County properly ruled on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Court found that the circuit court properly granted JNOV on the due-process, gender-discrimination, and retaliation claims, but improperly denied JNOV on the sexual-harassment claims. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mollaghan v. Varnell" on Justia Law

Vicksburg Chemical Company (VCC) filed for bankruptcy in 2002. Included in its bankruptcy estate was over 500 acres of real property, a portion of which was contaminated. Pursuant to an agreed order, the bankruptcy court allowed VCC to abandon the property and allowed the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to choose the purchaser. Without the aid of any guidelines or statutory law regarding this process, MDEQ, at the suggestion of the Attorney General's Office (AG), published a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify interested parties capable of removing the contamination. The plaintiff, Pacific Chlorine, Inc. (PCI), was one of several companies to submit a proposal. MDEQ did not select PCI's proposal, but instead selected Harcros Chemicals, Inc. (Harcros), a company which worked closely with the City of Vicksburg (the City) on its proposal. Aggrieved, PCI sued MDEQ and the City. PCI settled with the City. Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment against MDEQ. MDEQ appealed to the Supreme Court, raising six assignments of error that fall into three categories: whether PCI is required to exhaust its administrative remedies, whether the trial court erred by denying MDEQ's motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment, and whether MDEQ is immune from suit under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). This case presented an issue of first impression, the issue being whether MDEQ acted within the scope of its authority when assisting a bankruptcy court with finding a purchaser for contaminated land. The Court found that it was. View "Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality v. Pacific Chlorine, Inc." on Justia Law

After Robert Allcock died at a hospital, his mother sued the hospital, the treating doctor, and the doctor's clinic. Allcock failed to designate an expert, and the trial court denied her motion to amend the pretrial order. Still, a jury found for Allcock, but the trial court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial because of a faulty jury instruction. Before the second trial, Allcock again moved to amend the pretrial order. The trial court again denied her motion, and the jury found for the defendants. Because the jury instruction stated an incorrect rule of law; and because Allcock was on sufficient notice of the defendants' expert testimony, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings. View "Allcock v. Bannister" on Justia Law

Johnny R. Young, Jr. was convicted in the Circuit Court of Union County on three counts of sexual battery of his minor daughter and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences. The Supreme Court assigned Young's appeal to the Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed. The Court granted certiorari to consider two of Young's issues and found that: (1) the circuit court did not err by admitting evidence that Young had sexually assaulted his stepsister when she was five and he was fifteen, because the circuit court found the prior assault probative of a noncharacter issue under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (2) the sexual-assault nurse examiner who examined "Cindy" was amply qualified by her training and experience to testify regarding the cause of the hymenal tear or rupture that she had observed while examining Cindy. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial and appellate courts' judgments. View "Young v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death action filed by the decedent's niece, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the niece did not have standing to file the complaint. At the same time, the decedent's brother's estate filed a motion to substitute as the real party in interest. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the substitution. The case came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal. Finding the niece was an "interested party" as an heir-at-law of the decedent, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jaquith Nursing Home v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law

A jury found Anthony Mercie Expose guilty of having forcible sexual intercourse with Shannon M. Bessee. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded his conviction because it found that the trial court had erred in refusing an instruction that would have informed the jury that consent is a defense to forcible sexual intercourse and that the State had the burden of proving that Bessee had not consented. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction. Additionally, the Court found that the post-trial discovery of a domestic-violence conviction involving Bessee's husband did not warrant a new trial. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the verdict and sentence Circuit Court. View "Expose v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The trial court sentenced Charles Harris as a habitual offender to the maximum twenty years for aggravated assault, and to ten years for being a convicted felon who used a firearm in the commission of a felony. But the statute that authorizes a ten-year sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a felony does not apply where a "greater minimum sentence" is available under some other provision of law. And because the minimum sentence available for Harris's habitual status exceeded ten years, the Supreme Court vacated his sentences and reversed and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for re-sentencing. View "Harris v. Mississippi" on Justia Law