In an ongoing series, I’ve been commenting on the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decisions since the advent of new members, with a particular focus on divided opinions. I’ve missed two decisions lists, partly because they are so eventful. Watch for future comment on them. In the meantime, today’s list has only one opinion. It’s divided (8-1, with a majority opinion by Kitchens, a dissent by Waller, Graves concurring but neither joining nor explaining, and Pierce offering a short clear explanation why he concurs). Without saying more I’ll just note that this one seems clearly right to me, but perhaps I’m biased. I’ll leave more detailed comments to others.
Prior posts in this series describe all but two of this year’s decisions lists so far (I’ll catch those soon). They can be found in order of posting here and here and here.
8-1, I’m guessing you meant? Congrats!
N.b. that the court granted cert in Stuart v. UMMC, which indicates that we are going to get yet another mysterious opinion on Easterling and the MTCA notice-of-claim rule.
8-1 of course and fixed
I like the phrase “yet another mysterious opinion on … the MTCA notice-of-claim rule.”
The more they explain, the less clear it becomes.
NMC – well, good for you. in the lawyer context, it doesn’t get much better than seeing ‘reversed and remanded’ when you’re the appellant, does it? once – just once, i came out with a ‘reversed and RENDERED.’ partially, of course, but no matter – should’ve framed it. maybe i will – if i can remember who the client was!
So what’s the polestar for counsel both for the taking entity and for the defendants? I concur in reversing the grant of s/j, but I’m not sure I understand everything I know beyond that.
I was a little puzzled by the decision, since I had to research fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation a while back for a case, and it seemed a more fraught issue than the court is letting on (or noticing, perhaps).
The only interesting things for court-watchers, that I saw, is Pierce’s belief that Kitchens overstepped in his “conclusory statements.”
Congrats to Appellants’ counsel. May be a bit of a problem at the trial level if the plan does show a box culvert as the dissent says, but one step at a time. Of course, this kind of appellate decision seldom covers the total impact of the factual issues that arise at the trial level, especially when the decision is a review of a motion for summary judgment.
I appreciate these postings on the MSC decisions. Makes my life a lot easier!
Could someone give me a cite for “Stuart v. UMMC”?
PS Congrats to NMC & Lady J!
Congrats, NMC.
yeehaw!
Stuart v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr., 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 774 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008)
>^!^< thanks Bayrat