This case concerned the validity of a vehicle stop and subsequent search of Terrance Eaddy by Mississippi officers who were attempting to execute arrest warrants for a different individual, Wendell Barnes. Officers received a tip about Barnes driving a red Cadillac, stopped a matching vehicle, and during the encounter searched Eaddy, discovering cocaine and a firearm, leading to his conviction for drug possession with intent and felon-in-possession charges. Eaddy moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search exceeded permissible bounds under the circumstances. The trial court denied the motion, finding the search justified for officer safety after observing a gun and alcohol. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed, holding that the trial court clearly erred because the officers lacked specific, articulable facts supporting a protective frisk of Eaddy once it was apparent he was not Barnes, and inconsistencies between the officer's report and testimony undermined the justification.
The case involved a custody dispute over a child born in 2004, where the natural mother and father had voluntarily consented to an uncontested adoption by the maternal grandparents in 2005; after both grandparents died, the mother petitioned for custody and claimed entitlement to the natural-parent presumption, while the paternal grandparents argued she had forfeited it by the adoption. The chancery court granted the mother partial summary judgment on the presumption issue, but the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed on interlocutory appeal. The court held that a final adoption pursuant to Mississippi statutes irrevocably terminates the natural parent's legal relationship and rights, even upon the adoptive parents' deaths, so the mother stood only as the child's sister and could not assert the presumption. The decision rested on the irrevocability of voluntary surrender of parental rights under the adoption statute and prior precedent, remanding for further proceedings on custody without that presumption.
The case involved Melissa Whiting, a nontenured assistant professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, who sued the university, its board, and several administrators after being denied tenure and promotion. Whiting alleged flaws in the review process, including poor advice on her application dossier and interference by colleagues, and brought claims sounding in tort and contract related to the university's tenure policies and handbooks. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing all claims. The court reasoned that Whiting had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act before filing suit, and that the university's tenure policies did not create a legitimate expectation of or protected interest in tenure, which remained discretionary with the Board of Trustees.
The case involved competing petitions by the City of Horn Lake and the Town of Walls to annex overlapping territories in DeSoto County, Mississippi. The DeSoto County Chancery Court denied both petitions after finding the proposed annexations unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances, considering twelve indicia of reasonableness. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that it was supported by substantial and credible evidence and that the chancellor had not employed an erroneous legal standard or been manifestly wrong.
This case involved a wrongful death action based on alleged medical negligence at a nursing and rehabilitation center. James Payne filed the original suit as the decedent's great-nephew and purported personal representative, but he lacked standing because he was neither a statutory wrongful death beneficiary nor appointed estate administrator at the time of filing. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed a trial court ruling that had allowed substitution, leading to dismissal of the suit with prejudice; Payne did not appeal that dismissal. When Payne later filed a second, nearly identical complaint, the trial court dismissed it, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior dismissal with prejudice barred relitigation of the same claims regardless of arguments about the general saving statute.
In Blanchard v. State, Montae Blanchard was convicted by a jury of armed robbery under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-79 after a trial conducted in his absence, and he received a sentence of fifty years' imprisonment plus fines and restitution. Blanchard appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by proceeding without him without evidence his absence was voluntary, that his counsel was ineffective, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to inconsistencies in witness descriptions and testimony. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that there was no plain error in trying him in absentia, that ineffective assistance claims were better suited for post-conviction proceedings, and that the evidence—including identifications and accomplice testimony—was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.