http://www.folo.us/2009/02/16/last-week-at-the-mississippi-supreme-court/ Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:40:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.folo.us/2009/02/16/last-week-at-the-mississippi-supreme-court/#comment-64615 the oblivion haha Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:50 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11269#comment-64615 The assignment of cases to the Court of Appeals is completely random. 1/4 of all cases remain with the Supreme Court, while the remaining end up in the Court of Appeals. There's no real method to the selection. I've had double capital murder cases in the Court of Appeals and simple drug possession cases in the Supreme Court. The assignment of cases to the Court of Appeals is completely random. 1/4 of all cases remain with the Supreme Court, while the remaining end up in the Court of Appeals. There’s no real method to the selection. I’ve had double capital murder cases in the Court of Appeals and simple drug possession cases in the Supreme Court.

]]> http://www.folo.us/2009/02/16/last-week-at-the-mississippi-supreme-court/#comment-64554 somslawyer Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:40:18 +0000 http://www.folo.us/?p=11269#comment-64554 Sometimes, like with the arbitration decision, the issue may be whether the concurring justice thinks the decision is worth a written opinion at all. The arbitration case turned on a fact question: Were markings on the page intended as a signature? The trial court found as a fact that it was not. The Supreme Court said that finding of fact was entitled to deference and affirmed. There is a good basis for a per curiam affirmance in those facts. Maybe Randolph and Dickinson (who are on opposite sides of arbitration at times) thought it should have stopped there. Sometimes, like with the arbitration decision, the issue may be whether the concurring justice thinks the decision is worth a written opinion at all. The arbitration case turned on a fact question: Were markings on the page intended as a signature? The trial court found as a fact that it was not. The Supreme Court said that finding of fact was entitled to deference and affirmed. There is a good basis for a per curiam affirmance in those facts. Maybe Randolph and Dickinson (who are on opposite sides of arbitration at times) thought it should have stopped there.

]]>