Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Farris v. Mississippi Transportation Commission
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2011-03-22 · cited 5×
Jason Farris sued the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC) after a dead pine tree in the highway right-of-way fell on his vehicle, causing serious injuries, claiming liability under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Following a bench trial, the circuit court dismissed the case, finding MTC immune from suit. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that MTC's maintenance and inspection of the right-of-way fell within the discretionary-function exemption of MTCA section 11-46-9(1)(d) because no statute or regulation created a mandatory duty to inspect every tree or remove all dead trees without notice of a specific hazard. The court further ruled that the dangerous-condition exception under section 11-46-9(1)(v) could not overcome the discretionary immunity. The decision rested on the absence of actual or constructive notice to MTC and the economic discretion involved in prioritizing inspections.
torts & liability
Trotter v. State
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2005-02-15 · cited 21×
Milton Trotter and three co-defendants kidnapped a victim and stole a car, after which the victim was killed in a Mississippi hotel while Trotter was unconscious; Trotter waived indictment and pleaded guilty in 1981 to murder less than capital in Lauderdale County Circuit Court, receiving a life sentence to run concurrently with a federal kidnapping sentence. Over twenty-two years later, he filed a habeas corpus petition alleging lack of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court recharacterized the petition as one for post-conviction relief under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, dismissed several claims as time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations, and rejected the rest on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that habeas petitions challenging convictions are properly treated as post-conviction motions and that the time bar precluded review of the claims tied to the validity of the guilty plea.
criminal lawprocedure
Smith v. State
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2005-02-08 · cited 5×
The case involved Kenneth Smith's appeal of his convictions in DeSoto County Circuit Court for fondling a child and sexual battery of a fourteen-year-old victim, in violation of Mississippi statutes, for which he received concurrent sentences of fifteen and twenty years. Smith raised five issues on appeal, including the admission of his statement without fresh Miranda warnings, the sufficiency of the evidence, restrictions on cross-examining witnesses about pretrial interviews, denial of a lesser-included-offense jury instruction, and an improper closing argument by the prosecutor. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed the convictions, holding that plain-error review did not require reversal on the unobjected-to statement, the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the trial court committed no reversible error on the remaining evidentiary and instructional issues, and any prejudice from the closing remark was cured by the judge's admonition to the jury.
criminal lawprocedure
Pigford v. Jackson Public School Dist.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2005-02-01 · cited 4×
The case involved Jacob Pigford, an autistic student in the Jackson Public School District who could not communicate verbally, who sustained bruises after a teacher's aide attempted to restrain him during an anxiety attack triggered by a crowded hallway. His parents sued the district and two employees on his behalf, claiming excessive force by the aide and negligent failure to train, supervise, and establish appropriate guidelines for handling students like Jacob. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment for the defendants, applying the standard under Mississippi Code Section 11-46-9(1)(x) that immunizes schools from liability for actions taken to maintain student discipline absent willful or wanton conduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the employees' response was reasonable given Jacob's known behaviors, his individualized education plan developed with parental input, and the need to prevent harm to him or others.
torts & liability
Horn v. Horn
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2005-01-25 · cited 40×
In Horn v. Horn, a Mississippi chancery court granted Karen Horn a divorce from Jason Horn on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, awarded her legal and physical custody of their child, set visitation and child support, and divided the marital assets and debts, with Karen receiving the majority. Jason appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the divorce ground, the custody determination under the Albright factors, the visitation schedule, and the property division. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce, custody, and visitation rulings, finding that Karen's testimony and corroborating evidence of physical and emotional abuse met the legal standard for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and that the chancellor properly applied the custody factors. It reversed and remanded solely on the property division, holding that the chancellor failed to make adequate findings of fact on asset valuations and contributions as required under Ferguson v. Ferguson. A dissent argued that the chancellor's property award was supported by the parties' own testimony and did not require expert valuations.
family law
Johns v. State
Court of Appeals of Mississippi · 2005-01-18 · cited 3×
Oliver Johns, Jr. was convicted of aggravated assault after being accused of driving a car from which shots were fired at Kendall Jefferson in 1996; at trial, only Johns testified in his defense despite claims of alibi witnesses. After his direct appeal was denied, Johns sought post-conviction relief alleging that alibi testimony from three witnesses would have altered the outcome and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to contact them. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief, applying a "reasonable probability" standard rather than preponderance of the evidence and relying partly on the judge's personal knowledge of counsel's reputation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed the denial, holding that the standard used caused no prejudice to Johns, that counsel's performance was not shown to be deficient, and that the judge's reliance on prior experience with the attorney did not demonstrate bias requiring recusal.
criminal lawprocedure