If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Supreme Court of Mississippi
March 20, 2020

Table of Contents

Smith v. Mississippi Transportation Commission

Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Newell v. Mississippi

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Woodson v. Mississippi

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC v. Mississippi Dept. of Health & Wound Care Management, LLC

Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

Are You a Lawyer? The Justia Lawyer Directory boasts over 1 million visits each month.

Supreme Court of Mississippi Opinions

Smith v. Mississippi Transportation Commission

Citation: 2018-CA-01544-SCT

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Personal Injury

Rhonda Smith appeals the Smith County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC). In 2010, Smith collided with a loaded logging truck. The truck was driven by Shelby Colson on Highway 28 in Smith County, Mississippi. Colson testified that he began slowing his vehicle because Joe Blackwell, an MTC employee, approached the truck from the side of the highway. He said Blackwell approached from under a tree canopy carrying a stop sign. Colson further said he had not seen any warning signs indicating that road work was occurring ahead or that he needed to slow his vehicle down before spotting Blackwell. Colson said Blackwell made no effort to wave the sign or to get his attention. He stopped because he was unsure what Blackwell was doing. Regardless of what prompted Colson to stop, Smith’s car rear ended Colson’s truck. Smith had no recollection of most of the events that occurred that morning. In June 2011, she brought suit against the MTC. The suit alleged that both Blackwell and the MTC were negligent in Blackwell’s posting, the sign placement, as well as Blackwell’s signaling. The MTC argued that Smith’s claims were preempted by the MTC’s discretionary-function immunity under Mississippi Code Section 11–46–9(1)(d) (Rev. 2015). As the Court of Appeals noted, “the precedent governing that question has evolved even during the pendency of this case . . . .” In Bailey v. City of Pearl, 282 So. 3d 669, 671(Miss. Ct. App. 2019), the Mississippi Court of Appeals correctly applied the public-policy function test articulated in the recent decision Wilcher v. Lincoln County Board of Supervisors, 243 So. 3d 177 (Miss. 2018). Similar to Bailey, not all of Smith’s theories of recovery were disposed of by summary judgment. As in Wilcher and Bailey, issues of material fact remainrf regarding the MTC’s liability. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the Smith County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment to the extent Smith’s claims were grounded in the MTC’s decision-making processes, but it was reversed concerning Smith’s claims unrelated to the MTC’s decision-making processes.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Newell v. Mississippi

Citation: 2018-KA-01689-SCT

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Leslie D. King

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Orlando Newell shot and killed Michael Woods. At trial, he argued self-defense, and the jury convicted him of murder. The trial court gave a pre-arming jury instruction, which precluded Newell’s self-defense theory. Because this instruction was not supported by the evidence and improperly impaired Newell’s self-defense claim, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s grant of the pre-arming instruction was made in error. Consequently, Newell's conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Woodson v. Mississippi

Citation: 2019-KA-00199-SCT

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Ishee

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After Kendal Woodson’s wife said she was going to leave him, he beat her severely and poured hot cooking oil on her. Woodson was convicted of domestic aggravated assault. Woodson’s trial counsel filed no posttrial motions, but Woodson later obtained an out-of-time appeal. His appointed counsel filed "Lindsey" brief, certifying she found no arguable issues supporting an appeal. Woodson did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court concurred there were no appealable issues, accepted counsel's Lindsey certification, and affirmed Woodson's conviction and sentence.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC v. Mississippi Dept. of Health & Wound Care Management, LLC

Citation: 2018-CC-01057-SCT

Opinion Date: March 19, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The Mississippi State Department of Health entered a final order approving a Certificate of Need for Wound Care Management, LLC, d/b/a MedCentris for the “[p]rovision of [d]igital [s]ubtraction [a]ngiography (DSA) services (Limb Salvage Program).” Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a Merit Health River Region, a hospital in Vicksburg that opposed the certificate of need, appealed the Department’s statutorily affirmed decision pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 41-7-201(2) (Rev. 2018). After considering the record and issues presented, the Mississippi Supreme Court entered an order on its own motion requiring supplemental briefing regarding whether Section 41-7-201(2), as amended, governed the appeal process pertaining to facilities established for the private practice, either independently or by incorporated medical groups of physicians. The Supreme Court held that River Region lacked the right to petition the chancery court for review of the certificate of need under Section 41-7-201(2). Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the case and remanded it to the Hinds County Chancery Court for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043