In this Mississippi divorce case, Paul Roach sued his wife Ilene for divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment after she left their home in October 2022, alleging she had improperly managed his medications and taken property; Ilene was served by certified mail at her Texas address but did not answer or appear. The Coahoma County Chancery Court held a hearing in August 2023 at which Paul and a corroborating witness testified, granted the divorce, and voided a 2020 deed that transferred property interests to Ilene’s children. Ilene later filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the judgment, which the chancery court denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Ilene had been properly served, was in default, and was not entitled to notice of the hearing; the trial court had conducted a full evidentiary hearing rather than entering a default judgment; and Ilene had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting Rule 60(b) relief. The court noted that the appeal was limited to review of the denial of the post-judgment motion and did not reach the merits of the underlying divorce decree.
The case concerned Mississippi taxpayers Billy and Karen Parrott and their business, Santa’s Tree Land & Wholesale Fireworks, LLC, who disputed sales-tax and related income-tax assessments issued by the Mississippi Department of Revenue after an audit. The MDOR determined that proceeds from the Parrotts’ sales of storage-locker contents and personal items—conducted alongside their Christmas-tree and fireworks operations—were taxable gross proceeds rather than exempt “yard sales,” resulting in assessments that included penalties and interest. Both the MDOR Board of Review and the Board of Tax Appeals upheld the assessments; the Parrotts then petitioned the Harrison County Chancery Court, which dismissed the petition with prejudice. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record contained substantial evidence that the activity was a regular business operation subject to tax and that the taxpayers had not shown the assessments or the imposition of penalties and interest were improper.
Felicia Knight, an echocardiographer at Forrest County General Hospital, suffered a work-related slip-and-fall injury in June 2019 that damaged her right knee and lower back; she sought workers’ compensation benefits for knee surgery, permanent disability, and ongoing medical care, while the hospital contested the compensability of the surgery, the extent of disability, and apportionment. After hearings, an administrative judge and then the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission awarded Knight a 60% industrial loss of use for her right leg (after 25% apportionment for pre-existing conditions) plus a 15% loss of wage-earning capacity for the back injury, along with continuing reasonable medical treatment for the back. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order in full. The court held that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including unrebutted vocational testimony on reduced job access, functional capacity evaluations documenting physical limitations, medical records linking the injuries to the fall, and evidence that Knight returned to work only with accommodations. The appellate court applied its deferential standard of review and found no error in the Commission’s rulings on compensability, apportionment, or disability.
The Holifields sued Highland Community Hospital (HCH) for medical negligence, alleging that April sustained cervical injuries during a November 2021 procedure performed by hospital staff. After HCH moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on the ground that it was not a separate suable entity but merely a division of Forrest General Hospital (FGH), a governmental community hospital, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to substitute FGH as the defendant. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motion to amend and dismissal of the claims, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to serve the statutorily required pre-suit notice of claim on FGH’s chief executive officer under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act before the one-year limitations period expired, rendering amendment futile. The court took judicial notice that FGH owned and operated HCH and that any notice sent to insurance representatives or HCH personnel did not satisfy the MTCA’s requirements for the proper governmental entity.
Anthony Spearman appealed his conviction for aggravated assault after a Grenada County jury found him guilty of shooting at LeeKedrick Moore in a Walmart parking lot on July 15, 2020, wounding Moore in the foot during an exchange of gunfire. The trial court sentenced Spearman to twenty years in prison and denied his post-trial motion challenging the verdict and the refusal of a self-defense jury instruction, which the court found unsupported by any evidence. On appeal, Spearman’s appointed counsel filed a Lindsey brief stating that a thorough review of the record revealed no arguable issues for review, and Spearman did not submit a pro se supplemental brief after being given the opportunity. The Court of Appeals independently examined the record, determined that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and that no self-defense instruction was warranted, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Justin Hagan was convicted by a Neshoba County jury of aggravated assault after shooting his first cousin and neighbor, Tyler Hancock, with a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot from about 35-40 yards away while Hancock was bush-hogging on his own property; the trial court imposed a 15-year sentence with five years suspended. On appeal, Hagan argued that the circuit court erred by refusing his proposed jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence did not support a simple-assault instruction because Hagan admitted he deliberately aimed and fired at Hancock (though claiming he intended only to scare him), the shotgun constituted a deadly weapon under the circumstances, and there was no evidence of negligence that would allow conviction under the simple-assault statute. The court relied on precedent establishing that use of a shotgun in an assault generally precludes a simple-assault instruction absent facts showing the weapon was not deadly.