IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00742
|
|
- Myles Lucas
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 E-Filed Document Mar :52: CA Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CYNDY HOWARTH, INDIVIDUALLY, WIFE, WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RICHARD HOWARTH, JR., DECEASED; JULIET HOWARTH MCDONALD, INDIVIDUALLY, DAUGHTER AND AS WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF RICHARD HOWARTH, JR., DECEASED, AND CYNDY HOWARTH, AS GUARDIAN, NATURAL MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF CYNTHIA HOWARTH, A MINOR AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY OF RICHARD HOWARTH, JR., DECEASED APPELLANTS V. M & H VENTURES, LLC APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLEE Richard L. Kimmel Glenn F. Beckham MBN: 3772 MBN: 2309 Upshaw, Williams, Biggers Upshaw, Williams, Biggers & Beckham, LLP & Beckham, LLP Post Office Drawer 8230 Post Office Drawer 8230 Greenwood, Mississippi Greenwood, Mississippi (662) (662) Attorney for Appellee Attorney for Appellee
2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Justices of the Supreme Court and/or the Judges of the Court of Appeals may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal: 1. Cyndy Howarth, individually, widow, wrongful death beneficiary, and as Executrix of the Estate of Richard Howarth, Jr., Deceased. 2. Juliet Howarth McDonald, individually, daughter and as wrongful death beneficiary of Richard Howarth, Jr., Deceased. 3. Cyndy Howarth, as guardian, natural mother and next friend of Cynthia Howarth, a minor and wrongful death beneficiary of Richard Howarth, Jr., Deceased. 4. M & H Ventures, LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company. 5. Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Appellants. 6. William W. Simmons, Esq., Attorney for Appellants. 7. Bradley S. Clanton, Esq., Attorney for Appellants. 8. Richard L. Kimmel, Esq., Attorney for Appellee. 9. Glenn F. Beckham, Esq., Attorney for Appellee. 10. Honorable Vernon R. Cotten, Circuit Court Judge. s/richard L. Kimmel RICHARD L. KIMMEL -i-
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii POSITION ON ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT A. HOWARTH IGNORES FOUNDATIONAL FACTS B. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE HOWARTH PLAINTIFFS AGAINST M & H C. THE CLAIMED NEED FOR DISCOVERY WAS PROPERLY REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ii-
4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Cirillo v. Central Mississippi Radiology LLC, 2013 WL (Miss. 2013) Malone v. Capital Correctional resources, Inc., 808 So.2d 963 (Miss. 2002) Restaurant of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Hotel Restaurant and Supply, Inc., 84 So.3d 32 (Miss. 2012) World Hospitality Limited v. Tow, 983 F.2d 650 (5 th Cir. 1993) STATUTES AND RULES , Miss. Code Ann , 8, (j), Miss. Code Ann Rule 34(b), M.R.A.P Rule 56(f), M.R.C.P , 15 -iii-
5 POSITION ON ORAL ARGUMENT M & H Ventures, LLC (hereinafter M & H ), has no objection to oral argument, but would show that the Order 1 dismissing this case was based upon well-settled principals of law applied to the particular facts of this case. Howarth s Request for Oral Argument does not describe novel issues. The decisional process of this Court will not be aided by oral argument. The Howarth Plaintiffs have not articulated any reason why oral argument would be helpful to the Court as required by Rule 34(b), M.R.A.P. 1 This document was titled by the trial court: Pre-Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Comments by the Trial Judge. It will be referred to herein as the Order of the trial court. 1
6 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The Statement of Issues by Howarth attempts to create mythical issues out of facts that do not exist in this case. The sole issue for this Court s adjudication is whether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the claims of the Howarth Plaintiffs against M & H by granting M & H s Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss. 2
7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Richard Howarth, Jr. was killed when his plane crashed shortly after takeoff from the Philadelphia, Mississippi airport on January 16, Howarth was the pilot and sole occupant of this aircraft. 2 The aircraft was owned by Appellee M & H Ventures, LLC, a company comprised of one member, Richard Howarth, the deceased pilot. M & H had no employees. The widow of Richard Howarth, Cyndy Howarth, filed suit against M & H alleging negligence and other causes of action against M & H, the company in which her deceased husband, Richard Howarth, was the sole member. Howarth s Statement of Facts, as with other aspects of her Brief, neglects to emphasize these essential facts serving as the basis for the trial court s dismissal of this case: That M & H Ventures was a company consisting of one member, Richard Howarth, the deceased pilot, and that M & H had no employees. Therefore, M & H obviously could only act, or fail to act, through the actions of its sole member, Richard Howarth. Howarth s Statement of Facts and Brief contains erroneous allegations that should be noted: The Howarth Plaintiffs assert that M & H was a North Dakota corporation. It was not. It was a Montana limited liability company. 3 2 Howarth s Statement of Facts contend that the aircraft was pre-flighted in a normal and thorough manner and in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations and in compliance with the Aerostar checklist. Howarth further alleges that all relevant checks were made. However, there are no citations to the Record because there is no evidence in the Record supporting these allegations. In any event, as explained in the trial court s Order, this case must be dismissed regardless of what Richard Howarth did or failed to do. 3 Additionally, there was never any contention, nor could there be any contention, that Montana law applied to the facts of this case. 3
8 Howarth makes the assertion that M & H was responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, but fails to advise the Court, as previously noted, that Richard Howarth was M & H and only Richard Howarth could take any action to maintain the aircraft on behalf of M & H. M & H was not a corporation, but a company. (See Operating Agreement at R ; A.R.E. 2-4). 4 M & H was not a North Dakota Corporation as the Howarth Plaintiffs contend on p. 3 of their Brief. Howarth also alleges that Defendant Tracey Easom was also responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft. Again, there is no citation to the Record for this factual allegation, although Howarth did make such allegations in the Complaint. Howarth fails to advise this Court, as the trial court noted in its Order, that M & H had no employees. Defendant Tracey Easom, who was sued and served with process by Howarth, was therefore not an employee of M & H. Howarth also sued the aircraft manufacturer, and Tracey Easom, an individual. The claims against that manufacturer and Easom are not at issue on this appeal. The trial court entertained oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment of M & H and then requested the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by both parties. Subsequently, the Circuit Court, Judge Vernon Cotten, filed an extensive ruling granting M & H s Motion for Summary Judgment and Excerpts. 4 A.R.E. herein refers to Appellee s Record Excerpts; R.E. refers to Appellant s Record 4
9 Motion to Dismiss in a 14-page Order. (R ; R.E. 9-23). Howarth subsequently perfected an appeal from this Order. 5
10 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The foundation of Howarth s Brief is an inferred assertion that M & H was a mysterious company with multiple members and multiple employees or otherwise somehow acted in the absence of Richard Howarth. Such could not be and was not the case. M & H had one owner and one member only: The deceased pilot, Richard Howarth. That crucial, singular fact is largely ignored throughout the Brief of the Howarth Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Court did not find that M & H could not be sued under Mississippi law, but rather found that the suit that was in fact brought by the Howarth Plaintiffs was futile in view of , Miss. Code, which reduces any recovery by wrongful death beneficiaries by the negligence of the decedent (or injured party). Under these facts, wherein Howarth is the pilot of the aircraft and sole member of M & H, no recovery by the wrongful death beneficiaries is possible. Howarth s claim of a need for additional discovery under these facts is also a figment of creative but baseless legal reasoning. The foundation for the trial court s disposition of this issue was not refuted or even addressed in the Brief of Howarth because the reasoning of the trial court was based upon sound logic and the requirements of Rule 56(f), M.R.C.P. 6
11 ARGUMENT A. HOWARTH IGNORES FOUNDATIONAL FACTS. The factual foundation for the Order of the trial court are found in the Exhibits which M & H attached to its Motion for Summary Judgment. Inexplicably, Howarth avoided offering a coherent explanation as to why these undisputed facts did not support the trial court s Order dismissing the claims against M & H: The Operating Agreement of M & H provided: Richard A. Howarth was the initial and only member of M & H. The Operating Agreement also provided: 8.3 Procedure upon death of member. Upon death of member, this LLC, and all assets contained herein shall immediately proceed to the member s Estate as the new and sole owner of this LLC unless otherwise instructed. (R. 586; A.R.E. 4). M & H owned the aircraft, and Richard Howarth was the sole member of that company. (R. 584; A.R.E. 2). The fact that Richard Howarth was the sole member of M & H was confirmed by the letter of Cyndy Howarth s counsel (R. 587; A.R.E. 5). Subsequent to the accident, Cyndy Howarth, widow of Richard Howarth and Executrix of his Estate, submitted a sworn statement in proof of total loss regarding the aircraft hull damage so as to facilitate payment under an insurance policy to the owner of the plane, M & H and the lienholder, Citizen s National Bank of Meridian. Cyndy Howarth, Plaintiff in this action, executed this document as: Executrix of the Estate of Richard A. Howarth as Sole Beneficiary of that Estate including 100% ownership of M & H Ventures, LLC. (See Proof of Loss Statement at R. 588 _; A.R.E. 6). 7
12 The Affidavit of Plaintiff Cyndy Howarth also confirms that Richard Howarth was the sole member of M & H and M & H had no employees. (Affidavit of Plaintiff Cyndy Howarth at R. 589; A.R.E. 7). Since Richard Howarth was the sole member of M & H, M & H could only act or fail to act by and through the decisions and actions of its sole member, Richard Howarth. No coherent explanation of these facts consistent with the continuation of this lawsuit was offered because such facts cannot be addressed in any manner consistent with any recovery by the Howarth Plaintiffs regarding this accident. B. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE HOWARTH PLAINTIFFS AGAINST M & H. The Howarth Plaintiffs cannot articulate any reason why Richard Howarth s actions are not subject to the requirements of , Miss. Code Ann. which provides for a proportionate reduction of damages due to the negligence of the deceased in a wrongful death action, so the Howarth Plaintiffs play word games with such terms as immunity and corporate dissolution, and corporate veil. The trial court never ruled that M & H was immune from suit. Obviously M & H was sued. What the trial court did find was that the suit brought against M & H cannot go forward under these circumstances because the Howarth Plaintiffs cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted to them against M & H, and that under the undisputed genuine issues of material fact and the applicable law, M & H is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The implications of the true facts wherein Howarth was the sole member of M & H were correctly analyzed by the trial court which found that M & H could only act or fail to act through actions of Howarth. See World Hospitality Limited v. Tow, 983 F.2d 650 (5 th 8
13 Cir. 1993), holding that a corporation can only act through its officers and directors. When one person owns a controlling interest in the corporation and dominates the corporation s actions, his acts are the corporation s acts. Tow at 652. Since M & H had no employees and no other members, assertions in the Amended Complaint concerning M & H s negligence in the maintenance, repair, inspection, and certification of the subject airplane can only be the negligence of Richard Howarth, Plaintiff s decedent. (Order at R. 786; R.E. 19). Since this proposition of law is the legal foundation for the Order of the trial court, it is baffling that the Howarth Plaintiffs fail to take issue with it or explain how M & H could do anything without the participation of Richard Howarth. The Howarth Plaintiffs devoted substantial pages of their Brief to whether or not M&H was dissolved upon Howarth s death and whether M&H could be sued as a dissolved corporation. However, those issues make no difference as observed by the trial court:... the intention of the Operating Agreement was that (Cyndy) Howarth would inherit the assets of the LLC and LLC should be dissolved upon Howarth s death. Even if either of these particular assertions (dissolved or undissolved) are incorrect, no construction of this Operating Agreement or applicable Mississippi law can allow the continued prosecution of this action against M&H... Should it be asserted that the entity formally known as M&H Ventures, LLC still exists, it is wholly owned and operated by the Estate of Howarth. Therefore, under the construction of the Operating Agreement, the Estate of Howarth has sued itself. There is no provision in the statutory or common law or in the realm of common sense that allows an entity to sue itself. (If a Plaintiff could do that, the obvious implication is that the Estate of Howarth has pled, and thereby admitted the negligence of M&H 9
14 wherein Richard Howarth was the sole actor and member). (Order at R ; R.E. 18/19). The trial court further observed that... if M&H continues to exist... it appears to the Court that this proposition does not support the continued prosecution of this case against M&H, the owner of the airplane, a company in which Richard Howarth was the sole member. (R. 786; R.E. 19). Thereafter, the Court explained that since Howarth was the sole member of M&H, M&H could only act through the acts of Howarth, and any negligence of Howarth would serve to reduce the damages recoverable by the wrongful death beneficiaries of Howarth pursuant to , Miss. Code Ann. (R ; R.E. 20). M & H and Richard Howarth were not separate legal entities as has been asserted by the Howarth Plaintiffs. M & H has no existence without Richard Howarth. Richard Howarth was M & H s sole actor, without whom M & H could not do anything, or fail to do anything. The Howarth Plaintiffs urge that there was no effort by anyone to pierce the corporate veil protecting him (Richard Howarth) (Brief of Appellant, p. 11). To the extent some veil exists with regard to M&H, there was and is no corporate or company veil to pierce. The Howarth Plaintiffs have admitted Richard Howarth was the sole member of M&H and that it had no employees. In any event, references by the Howarth Plaintiffs to a piercing of the corporate veil is totally misplaced in the analysis of this case. As discussed in those cases cited by Plaintiff 5 the concept of piercing the corporate veil is a term used to impose liability upon individual members of a company or corporation by avoiding the shield or veil of its 5 Cirillo v. Central Mississippi Radiology, LLC, 2013 WL (Miss. 2013) and Restaurant of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Hotel and Restaurant Supply, Inc., 84 So.3d 32 (Miss. 2012). 10
15 company or corporate existence. M & H is taking no such action; rather, it is the Howarth Plaintiffs who are trying to impose liability upon M & H whose sole member was their deceased husband and father, Richard Howarth. While claiming the possibility of some recovery for the Plaintiff in this action, Howarth fails to explain how M & H could have acted or failed to have acted in any way other than by and through its sole member, Richard Howarth. Under long-established Mississippi statutory law, any damages sought by wrongful death beneficiaries are reduced in proportion to the negligence of the deceased pursuant to , Miss. Code, which provides: In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries or where such injuries have resulted in death... the fact that the person injured... may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, but damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured. There are no exceptions or restrictions applicable to the provisions of this statute which affect the mandated reduction of damages in the event that the deceased party happens to be the sole member of a company or corporation. The Court should note that the negligence of the injured person does not partially reduce damages, but rather reduces damages in proportion to the total negligence attributable to the injured or deceased person. No construction of this statute has ever allowed only a partial reduction of damages due to the negligence of the deceased or injured person. This case may be the first time anyone has asserted such a position. 11
16 The Howarth Plaintiffs construction of , Miss. Code Ann. is tortured to the point of non-recognition. Concluding their discussion of that statute, the Howarth Plaintiffs allege that the negligence, if any, of the pilot, (Richard) Howarth, is not a bar to recovery. (Brief of Appellant, p. 12). They are certainly correct in this assertion. The Howarth Plaintiffs are certainly free to collect all they can for the negligence of entities who are persons, companies, corporations, or other entities whose negligence caused this aircraft crash, but only to the extent that those entities are not Richard Howarth as in the case at bar. As they argued before the trial court, in the concluding section of their Brief, the Howarth Plaintiffs repeated their reliance on Malone v. Capital Correctional Resources, Inc., 808 So.2d 963 (Miss. 2002) as legal precedent for their position. The trial court easily distinguished Malone in its Order, pointing out that the pilot in Malone was a person other than the owner of the aircraft. (Order of Court at R. 783, R.E. 16). Such are not the facts in the case at bar. The statute which Malone discusses, (j), Miss. Code Ann., provides that the owner of a plane will be treated just like the pilot actually operating the plane (in liability determinations). (Brief of Appellant, p. 12). Then, in an effort to mislead this Court, the Howarth Plaintiffs state in a razzle-dazzle fashion: Even if M&H is correct that the accident was, at least in part, Mr. Howarth s fault, under (j), Miss. Code Ann., Richard Howarth would be 50% liable and M&H would be 50% liable. While picking percentages out of thin air, the particular statute relied upon by the Howarth Plaintiffs does not provide for separate assessments of negligence against both 12
17 the owner and pilot, but rather the statute was enacted to assure that any negligence of the pilot would be that of the owner as well to assure the presence of a solvent Defendant. This is not the first time that the Howarth Plaintiffs have attempted to mislead regarding the substance of aviation law. Repeatedly the Howarth Plaintiffs urged the trial court that there was some Federal Aviation Administration regulation which provided for strict liability in the event of an airplane crash. (R ; A.R.E. 8-16). The trial court concluded in its Order that there was no such regulation providing for strict liability as the result of an aircraft accident of the type before the Court. (R. 781; R.E. 14) C. THE CLAIMED NEED FOR DISCOVERY WAS PROPERLY REJECTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. The Howarth Plaintiffs attempt to impugn the trial court s decision by claiming that it unfairly precluded Howarth from conducting discovery. The trial court never issued any Order staying discovery or prohibiting Howarth from conducting discovery. Furthermore, nothing prohibited Howarth s attorneys from fully investigating the accident or any factual aspect of the case. The trial court correctly disposed of all allegations concerning the claimed need for additional discovery in its Order. (R ; R.E ). The reasons given by the Howarth Plaintiffs in their Brief concerning their need for additional discovery include the need to determine the history of M&H s ownership and maintenance of the aircraft and to investigate the relationship between M&H and Tracey Easom. (Brief of Appellant, p. 5). As discussed by the trial court, the history of M&H s ownership of the aircraft is fully available to Cyndy Howarth since she is now the owner of M&H and in fact previously collected $100, of insurance proceeds for the property damage claim resulting from 13
18 this crash. Furthermore, the history of M&H s ownership is already fully known, the Howarth Plaintiffs having admitted that when the company was formed and at the time of the crash, Richard Howarth was the sole member of M&H. Should any investigation or discovery into the maintenance of the aircraft reveal that entities other than Richard Howarth were negligent with regard to aircraft maintenance, that will certainly be of use to the Howarth Plaintiffs in pursuing their remaining claims against Easom and the aircraft manufacturers; but, it bears them no gain for their suit against M&H. The Howarth Plaintiffs allegation that they need to investigate the relationship between M&H and Tracey Easom remains baffling since the Howarth Plaintiffs already know and have admitted that Easom was not an employee of M&H. It is quite telling that the Howarth Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain what facts could possibly be discovered which would somehow change the foundational facts, or would tend to make any recovery against M & H more likely, or which would overcome the conclusions explained by Judge Cotten in his Order. This is understandable since even with a graphic imagination one cannot envision such facts when it has been fully established that M & H had one member, Richard Howarth, and no employees. At a minimum, the Howarth Plaintiffs should have addressed the trial court s reasoning in rejecting the claimed need for additional discovery. The trial court explained that Howarth did not need additional discovery on the history of M & H through her attorneys. Howarth also did not need to investigate the maintenance of the aircraft since any finding of negligence by M & H would only serve to reduce any damages recoverable by the Estate and wrongful death beneficiaries, and any finding that Howarth was not guilty of any negligence would confirm M & H s entitlement to an Order of Dismissal. The trial 14
19 court also addressed Howarth s claim that it needed to investigate the relationship between M & H and Tracey Easom. The trial court observed that no such investigation needed to be conducted in terms of establishing liability of M & H since Easom was not M &H s employee. Furthermore, Howarth had conceded that M & H could only act or failed to act by and through the decisions of its sole member, Richard Howarth. (Material Undisputed Fact, R. 573; A.R.E. 26). Furthermore, with regard to Easom, Howarth conceded that M & H had no employees. (Motion of M & H, p. 5, 11). In arguing to this Court that the trial court erred by failing to allow additional discovery before ruling upon M & H s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, the Howarth Plaintiffs address none of these findings by the trial court. The trial court also rejected Howarth s claim for the need for additional discovery based upon Howarth s failure to follow the well-known provisions of Rule 56(f) M.R.C.P. which require the presentation of Affidavits explaining the reasons why the opponent of a Motion for Summary Judgment cannot present facts essential to justify the opposition. Rule 56(f), M.R.C.P., is not a rule that a trial court can or should brush aside as mere surplusage. It is mandatory. Howarth cannot even utilize lack of knowledge of this provision of Rule 56 as an excuse because Howarth s counsel noted at oral argument on December 14, 2015, that we re entitled to discovery. We didn t do a Rule 56 Affidavit, but we certainly let them know before today that we wanted... we would like discovery and I think we would be entitled to it. (R. 601; A.R.E. 19). It is obvious why no Affidavit was submitted: No such Affidavit could be submitted in good faith under these facts. 15
20 CONCLUSION The trial court correctly dismissed the claims of the Howarth Plaintiffs against M & H, a company comprised of only one member: the deceased pilot, husband and father of the Howarth Plaintiffs. Mississippi law does not permit recovery based on the acts of Howarth if he was free of negligence, and statutory law requires reduction of damages if any acts or failures to act by Howarth were negligent. When this Court affirms the dismissal of M&H, the Howarth Plaintiffs will be free to continue their claims of negligence against the aircraft manufacturer, Ted Smith Aerostar and Tracey Easom, parties which they allege performed aircraft and engine modifications, repairs, maintenance, overhauls, and inspections,... and... were negligent in the repair, testing, inspection, overhaul, rebuilding, owning, operating, selling, and annualing (sic) the aircraft, the aircraft engines, the aircraft fuel system, the aircraft fuel selector switches, and the exhaust system. (Brief of Appellant, p. 3). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 9 th day of March, UPSHAW, WILLIAMS, BIGGERS & BECKHAM, LLP OF COUNSEL: BY: s/glenn F. Beckham GLENN F. BECKHAM, MBN: 2309 RICHARD L. KIMMEL, MBN: 3772 UPSHAW, WILLIAMS, BIGGERS & BECKHAM, LLP POST OFFICE DRAWER 8230 GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI TEL: (662) FAX: (662) gbeckham@upshawwilliams.com 16
21 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on March 9, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr., Esq. Attorney at Law 405 Tombigbee Street Post Office Box Jackson, Mississippi William W. Simmons, Esq. Glover, Young, Hammack, Walton & Simmons, PLLC Post Office Box 5514 Meridian, Mississippi Bradley S. Clanton, Esq. Clanton Law Firm, PLLC Post Office Box 4781 Jackson, Mississippi I do certify that I have mailed, via first class mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Record Excepts of Appellee to: Honorable Vernon R. Cotten Circuit Judge 205 East Main Street Carthage, Mississippi SO CERTIFIED, this the 9 th day of March, s/glenn F. Beckham GLENN F. BECKHAM K:\user7\RK\M & H Ventures adv. Howarth\Brief of Appellee.wpd17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00742
E-Filed Document Jun 14 2017 15:21:03 2016-CA-00742-SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CA-00742 CYNDY HOWARTH, Individually, wife, wrongful death beneficiary, and as Executrix
More informationE-Filed Document Jun :34: CT SCT Pages: 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO TS-00644
E-Filed Document Jun 5 2017 15:34:49 2015-CT-00644-SCT Pages: 16 2015-TS-00644 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2015-TS-00644 ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT V. BENNIE
More informationE-Filed Document Sep :10: CA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.
E-Filed Document Sep 24 2015 10:10:03 2015-CA-00526 Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2015-CA-00526 S&M TRUCKING, LLC APPELLANT VERSUS ROGERS OIL COMPANY OF COLUMBIA,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO: 2016-TS SCT
E-Filed Document Apr 6 2017 10:50:18 2016-CA-00444 Pages: 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO: 2016-TS-00444-SCT L. H. MANNING, VIRGINIA WARREN, JOHN HENRY MANNING, EVA MANNING, GEANNIE JONES, AND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO M SCT
E-Filed Document Aug 18 2016 10:43:12 2014-IA-00854-SCT Pages: 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-M-00854-SCT TRK, LLC D/B/A TIMBER RIDGE TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS, B&B MANAGEMENT
More informationNO. 45,356-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered August 11, 2010. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 45,356-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * JUSTISS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE N ca NO.2014-ca-00984
E-Filed Document Dec 23 2014 11:31:08 2014-CA-00984 Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE N0.2014-ca-00984 NO.2014-ca-00984 VIRGINIA ROSS, on behalf of all beneficiaries of SCOTT
More informationORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIAN ROBISON, et al APPELLANTS VS. NO. 2009-CA-00383 ENTERPRISE RENT -A-CAR COMPANY APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE
More information2015 PA Super 131. Appeal from the Order Entered May 2, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No: S
2015 PA Super 131 ALEXANDRA AND DEVIN TREXLER, HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. MCDONALD S CORPORATION Appellee No. 903 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered May 2,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-0547 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 14:15:34 2013-CT-00547-SCT Pages: 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MILTON TROTTER APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CA-0547 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL
More informationE-Filed Document Dec :19: CA Pages: 17
E-Filed Document Dec 1 2017 18:19:55 2016-CA-01082 Pages: 17 IN THE MISSISSIPPI, SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 2016-CA-01082 TONY L. AND LINDA SMITH APPELLANTS VS. JOHN HENDON, UNION PLANTERS BANK, NA FIRST AMERICAN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARILYN NEWSOME
E-Filed Document Oct 26 2015 16:36:29 2015-CA-00762 Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP OF VICTORIA D. NEWSOME: MARILYN NEWSOME, APPELLANT CA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT DAVID GLENN NUNNERY, ET AL. V. ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF PIKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Jan 12 2016 18:30:47 2014-CT-00260-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CT-00260 DAVID GLENN NUNNERY, ET AL. V. PAUL EDWARD NUNNERY, ET AL. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA-00121
~ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2008-CA-00121 REBUILD AMERICA, INC. APPELLANT VERSES ROBERT K. MILNER AND WIFE, PATRICIA K. MILNER AND W ACHOVIA BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO FIRST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REHEARING
E-Filed Document Feb 12 2018 10:06:26 2016-CA-00928-COA Pages: 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2016-TS-00928 CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. APPELLANT VS. ARTHUR E. WOOD, III, AND PAULA WOOD APPELLEES
More informationv. No CA SCT DOROTHY L. BARNETT, et al. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY NO CIV ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
E-Filed Document May 30 2017 17:35:20 2013-CT-01296-SCT Pages: 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI VALLEY SILICA COMPANY, INC. APPELLANT v. No. 2013-CA-01296-SCT DOROTHY L.
More informationFILED MAR BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REOUESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. CASE NO tlb2082 NANCYLOIT
e O"y IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2007-tlb2082 NANCYLOIT APPELLANT VERSUS HARRIS D. PURVIS AND BRJ INC. FILED MAR 3 1 2008 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURf COURT OF APPEAlS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CC-002S8 c;oii-~ TERRY H. LOGAN, SR. AND BEVERLY W. LOGAN CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2013-CC-002S8 c;oii-~ TERRY H. LOGAN, SR. AND BEVERLY W. LOGAN 1PELLANTS V. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORT A TION COMMISSION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2008-IA-01191-SCT SHANNON HOLMES AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANTS VS. LEE MCMILLAN APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HINDS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
E-Filed Document Jun 1 2018 09:30:47 2016-CT-00928-SCT Pages: 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2016-TS-00928 CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. APPELLANT VS. ARTHUR E. WOOD, III, AND PAULA WOOD APPELLEES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES DA YID BRYANT, JR. V. PAMELA RENA SMITH BRYANT -e: APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2011-CA-00669 APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA STEVENS AUCTION COMPANY and JOHN D.
E-Filed Document Jan 12 2017 15:26:19 2016-CA-01085 Pages: 15 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2016-CA-01085 MARLIN BUSINESS BANK APPELLANT V. STEVENS
More informationCOMES NOW Appellant, Douglas Michael Long, Jr. (hereinafter Doug ), by
E-Filed Document Feb 28 2017 15:47:26 2015-CT-00527-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI DOUGLAS MICHAEL LONG, JR. APPELLANT VS. CAUSE NO.: 2015-CA-00527 DAVID J. VITKAUSKAS APPELLEE PETITION
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-87 CLAYTON CHISEM VERSUS YOUNGER ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 236,138 HONORABLE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA-00442
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2009-CA-00442 LA V ADA THOMAS APPELLANT VERSUS FIRST FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationAPPELLEE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
E-Filed Document Jan 24 201716:02:59 2015-CA-01428-COA Pages : 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ELIZABETH GRAHAM and MATTHEW GRAHAM vs. JAMES R. "JAMIE" FRANKS, JR. and WHEELER AND FRANKS
More informationIN THE. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA AND MISSISSIPPI STATE OIL AND GAS BOARD, ET AL
~L-rP-r IN THE. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JONES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ET AL VERSUS APPELLANTS NO.2011-CA-00712 AND MISSISSIPPI STATE OIL AND GAS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Jul 8 2015 13:57:01 2014-CP-00165-COA Pages: 7 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NATHANIEL WALDEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-CP-00165-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationE-Filed Document Oct :46: IA SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. No M-219
E-Filed Document Oct 26 2017 15:46:15 2017-IA-00219-SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2017-M-219 INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO: 2009-CA AMERICA'S HOME PLACE, INC. APPELLEE'S BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI PHILVESTER AND JOYCE WILLIAMS VS. AMERICA'S HOME PLACE, INC. APPELLANTS CAUSE NO: 2009-CA-01107 APPELLEE APPELLEE'S BRIEF James D. Bell, MSB #..., BELL & ASSOCIATES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00231
E-Filed Document Jan 21 2016 16:47:42 2014-CA-00231-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-00231 TAMARA GLENN, INDIVIDUALLY AD ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF MATTIE
More informationPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
E-Filed Document May 21 2018 10:19:45 2017-CT-00467-SCT Pages: 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DALTON RAY STEWART vs. VS. DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC APPELLANT NO. 2017-WC-00467-COA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO: 2015-CA COA VICTOR BYAS AND MARY BYAS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
E-Filed Document Feb 24 2017 16:23:57 2015-CA-00749-COA Pages: 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO: 2015-CA-00749-COA IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VIVIAN BYAS, DECEASED VICTOR BYAS
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI 2011-CA-OI040
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI 2011-CA-OI040 SHEILA DANETTE WELLS APPELLANT VS. FRANK PRICE and PHIL PRICE d/b/a PRICE CONSTRUCTIOCOMPANY CANTON SHEET METAL AND ROOFING APPELLEES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK DANTRE FLUKER BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK DANTRE FLUKER APPELLANT VS. NO.2008-CP-1182-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
More informationJ-O 11- L~-/3f&;,3 -- toile'
J-O 11- L~-/3f&;,3 -- toile' Certificate of Interested Persons The undersigned counsel of record certifies the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations
More informationBRIEF OF APPELLANT PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT BILOXI LLC D/B/A HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO
E-Filed Document Nov 16 2016 11:35:26 2016-CA-01282 Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-01282 PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT BILOXI LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO APPELLANT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CP APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CP-01387 HARRISON LEWIS, JR. APPELLANT VS. AZHARPASHA APELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903
E-Filed Document May 23 2016 10:57:29 2015-CA-00903-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903 MARKWETZEL APPELLANT VERSUS RICHARD SEARS APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.:
MARIA CEVALLOS, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4th District Case No: 4D08-3042 v. Petitioner, KERI ANN RIDEOUT and LINDA RIDEOUT, Respondents. / PETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
More informationBRIEF OF APPELLANTS, JAMES D. HAVARD AND MARGARET HAVARD
E-Filed Document Jun 29 2015 09:34:50 2015-CA-00138 Pages: 9 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES D. HAVARD and Wife, APPELLANTS ) MARGARET HAVARD, ) ) CASE VERSUS ) NUMBER ) 2015-CA-00138 TANELLE SUMRALL,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DBA MID-SOUTH FORESTRY; MID-SOUTH FORESTRY, INC.; AUG RICHARD CHISM, INDIVIDUALLY AND
COpy IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GLEN D. JACKSON APPELLANT v. NO. 2oo8-CA-00376 CHARLES CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A REGISTERED FORESTER AND FILED DBA MID-SOUTH FORESTRY;
More informationRules of Appellate Procedure, and files this Motion for Rehearing of the decision rendered by the
E-Filed Document Aug 8 2017 16:22:14 2016-CA-00215-COA Pages: 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00215 CONNIE HAWKINS, Individually and on Behalf of the WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
More informationON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF YAZOO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, THE HONORABLE JANACE HARVEY-GOREE
E-Filed Document Oct 15 2014 23:49:51 2013-CA-00620-COA Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI VERA M. MILLER WOOD, et. al. APPELLANTS vs. SUPREME COURT: 2013-CA-00620 AUDREY H. KEMP, et. al. APPELLEES
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2010-CA-OI624-COA BRIEF OF APPELLEES
/' ~ ~'. '\.. ' ' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2010-CA-OI624-COA FILE':';, MAY 262011 om.. af the Clerk 8up... COurt Courto'~I. MATT BROWN & HOLLI BROWN
More informationJUNE 24, 2015 PATRICK SIMMONS, SR. AND CRYSTAL SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED MINOR CHILD, ELI SIMMONS, ET AL. NO.
PATRICK SIMMONS, SR. AND CRYSTAL SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED MINOR CHILD, ELI SIMMONS, ET AL. VERSUS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, ET AL.
More informationMARC E. JOHNSON JUDGE
CLYDE PRICE AND HIS WIFE MARY PRICE VERSUS CHAIN ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ENTERGY CORPORATION AND/OR ITS AFFILIATE NO. 18-CA-162 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH
More informationNo.2007-IA BRIEF OF APPELLEES LA TISHA MCGEE. ET AL.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2007-IA-00909 UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER Appellant VS. LATISHA MCGEE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF LAURA WILLIAMS Appellees BRIEF OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. ARTHUR GERALD HUDSON and LINDA S. HUDSON APPELLANTS. v. Cause No CA LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC.
E-Filed Document Feb 21 2014 14:40:09 2013-CA-01004 Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ARTHUR GERALD HUDSON and LINDA S. HUDSON APPELLANTS v. Cause No. 2013-CA-01004 LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC.
More informationPETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL BY PERMISSION
ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, case No. e{o,~ - rn... tdi1 ROBERT PUGH vs. THE CITY OF MADISON; MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MADISON; THE CITY OF MADISON POLICE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.: 08-CR-011-NW-C
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.: 08-CR-011-NW-C JOHNNY JAMES, JR. APPELLANT VS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY,
More informationCAUSE NO CA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI REBUILD AMERICA, INC. ROBERT McGEE, MATTIE McGee, ET. AL.
CAUSE NO. 2009-CA-01188 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI REBUILD AMERICA, INC. Appellant v. ROBERT McGEE, MATTIE McGee, ET. AL. Appellee BRIEF OF APPELLEE Jeffrey D. Rawlings (MSB Jon J. Mims (MSB Rawlings
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BURNETTE AVAKIAN, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NORAIR AVAKIAN, DECEASED NO.
E-Filed Document Jul 19 2016 17:57:06 2015-CA-01520 Pages: 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BURNETTE AVAKIAN, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF NORAIR AVAKIAN, DECEASED VS. WILMINGTON TRUST
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI HOYT FORBES AND IDLDA FORBES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION APPELLANTS NO.2007-CA-00902-COA APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 6 2017 23:02:20 2016-IA-01060-SCT Pages: 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TARINIKA SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF KAYDEN JOHNSON, DECEASED, SHELENA AUSTIN PREWITT,
More informationNo. 48,370-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * *
Judgment rendered October 2, 2013. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 48,370-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * SANDRA
More informationBRIEF FOR APPELLEE VELCOM FILTERS, LLC
E-Filed Document Mar 18 2016 13:23:51 2015-CA-00243 Pages: 25 CASE NO. 2015-CA-00243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ROBERT HAMMONS, JR. APPELLANT VS. C. WADE NAVARRE, II, individually and d/b/a NAVARRE
More informationBRIEF OF APPELLEES I CROSS-APPELLANTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BARBARA JACKSON VS. DAVID J. LOWE, SR. and PATRICIA A. LOWE APPELLANT NO.201O-CP-00062 APPELLEES -AND- DAVID J. LOWE, SR. and PATRICIA A. LOWE CROSS-APPELLANTS
More informationBRIEF OF THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Dec 22 2016 15:32:53 2016-CA-01085 Pages: 15 SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MARLIN BUSINESS BANK vs. STEVENS AUCTION COMPANY AND JOHN D. STEVENS APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 20I6-CA-OI 2016-CA-011085
More informationE-Filed Document Jul :13: EC SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Jul 26 2016 13:13:30 2015-EC-01677-SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI TASHA DILLON APPELLANT vs. NO. 2015-CA-01677 DAVID MYERS APPELLEE On Appeal From the Circuit Court
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ALBERT ABRAHAM, JR. APPELLANT VS. NO. 2009-CP-01759 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT Oral Argument Requested
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V. CAUSE NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Aug 5 2014 01:08:18 2014-CA-00054-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DENNIS TERRY HUTCHINS APPELLANT V. CAUSE NO. 2014-CA-00054-COA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING
E-Filed Document Dec 28 2015 17:29:25 2014-KA-00664-COA Pages: 8 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES JOHNSON APPELLANT V. 2014-KA-00664-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE MOTION FOR
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-CA-00316
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-CA-00316 LEANORA McCLAIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF CARLTON McCLAIN, DECEASED APPELLANT / PLAINTIFF VS. STEVEN B. CLARK,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA APPELLEES MAGNOLIA and SOUTHWEST DISTRIBUTORS, Inc.
E-Filed Document Oct 28 2015 17:09:42 2014-CA-01457-COA Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI AUNDREA ROBINSON APPELLANT v. No. 2014-CA-01457 MARTIN FOOD STORES, Inc., d/b/a SUNFLOWER FOOD STORE
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT NAPOLEON L. CASSIBRY, III
E-Filed Document May 11 2016 15:57:28 2013-CA-01468-COA Pages: 11 IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2013-CA-01468 NAPOLEON L. CASSIBRY, III, as Trustee of the N.L. Cassibry, Jr. Family Trust, Trustee
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 38130 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NATALIE PARKS MC KEE, DECEASED. -------------------------------------------------------- MAUREEN ERICKSON, Personal
More informationBRIEF FOR APPELLANTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TROY LUNDQUIST, et al APPELLANTS VS. NO. 2010-CA-00597 TODD CONSTRUCTION, LLC APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 14-CI ABS-W BRIEF OF APPELLEE ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI BERNIE WINKEL AND RACHEL WINKEL APPELLANTS v. CASE NO. 2007CA01383 WINDSOR WINDOWS AND DOORS APPELLEE ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
More informationv. CAUSE NO CA-01920
E-Filed Document Jun 16 2014 16:40:22 2013-CA-01920-SCT Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PINNACLE TRUST COMPANY, L.L.C., EFP ADVISORS INC. AND DOUGLAS M. McDANIEL APPELLANTS
More informationNO CA Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
E-Filed Document Apr 28 2016 19:23:00 2014-CA-01006-COA Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014 CA-01006-Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner BRENDA FRANKLIN Appellant/Plaintiff
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed September 2, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-3314 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-1699
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2006-CA-1699 ISAAC K. BYRD, JR., KATRINA M. GIBBS, AND BYRD, GIBBS & MARTIN, PLLC, f/k/a BYRD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC APPELLANTS WILLIE J. BOWIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CHARLES
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/ :40 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2016 1040 AM INDEX NO. 152848/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/20/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ZOE DENISON, Plaintiff, INDEX
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00702
E-Filed Document Jun 6 2017 16:14:50 2016-CA-00702-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00702 RICHARD COLL APPELLANT VERSUS WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE APPEALED FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.20~0335 MISSISSIPPI DIVISION OF MEDICAID IN THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR APPELLANT VERSUS ESTATE OF ARLYN E. DARBY, DECEASED, LINDA DARBY STINSON, EXECUTRIX APPELLEE
More information11/16/2017 1:46 PM 17CV10996
//0 : PM CV0 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF TILLAMOOK 0 WILLIAM B. WALTON, an individual, JAMES JEFFERSON WALTON, JR, an individual, and VICTORIA K. WALTON, an individual,
More informationE-Filed Document Jun :06: KA COA Pages: 7 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY
E-Filed Document Jun 21 2017 11:06:32 2016-KA-01267-COA Pages: 7 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI HUNTER LANE SARRETT vs. VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT NO. 2016-TS-01267-COA APPELLEE APPELLANT'S
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI $104, U.S. CURRENCY ET AL APPELLEE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
E-Filed Document Apr 1 2017 13:06:29 2015-CT-00710-SCT Pages: 8 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CITY OF MERIDIAN VERSUS APPELLANT NO.2015-CA-00710-COA $104,960.00 U.S. CURRENCY ET AL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS NO. 98-PR-1405 TOPEL BLUEPRINTING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, SHIRLEY M. BRYANT, APPELLEE.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HAMILTON LYNCH HUNT CLUB LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 10, 2013 v No. 312612 Alcona Circuit Court LORRAINE M. BROWN and BIG MOOSE LC No. 10-001662-CZ
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division)
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Charlotte Division) In re: ) ) Chapter 7 TSI HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. ) ) Case No. 17-30132 (Jointly Administered) Debtors.
More informationIN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT NO EC ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT
IN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT ANDREW THOMPSON, JR. APPELLANT VS. NO. 2007-EC-01989 CHARLES LEWIS JONES APPELLEE ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Dec 1 2014 16:28:06 2013-KA-01785-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TREVOR HOSKINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01785-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.200B-CA APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.200B-CA-00447 THE COLOM LAW FIRM, LLC, AND MONIQUE BROOKS MONTGOMERY APPELLANTS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2013 CT SCT 2013-CT SCT. MILTON TROTTER, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee
E-Filed Document Apr 4 2016 16:50:10 2013-CT-00547-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2013 CT-00547-SCT 2013-CT-00547-SCT MILTON TROTTER, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee BRIEF
More informationl1cc101 G11au J he NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION MAR Judgment Rendered Appealed from the Twenty Third Judicial District Court Attorney for
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2008 CA 1791 STEVEN M JOFFRION SR AND STACY PIERCE JOFFRION VERSUS WILLIAM S FERGUSON AND TONYA S FERGUSON Judgment
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC. PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Jul 29 2015 11:38:08 2014-SA-01364-COA Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC. PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-TS-01364 MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationE-Filed Document Oct :39: CA SCT Pages: 21 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS OLSHAN AND WAYNE BROWN
E-Filed Document Oct 18 2017 13:39:56 2017-CA-00138-SCT Pages: 21 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS OLSHAN AND WAYNE BROWN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR CO. OF JACKSON, LLC d/b/a
More informationNo. 104,080 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. NANCY SUE BEAR, Appellant, and. BRUCE BECHTOLD and JAY BECHTOLD, Defendants.
No. 104,080 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KATHY ANN BRADLEY, PATTI JUNE GIBBS, DEBRA LYNN WHITEBIRD, BARBARA JEAN WEAVER, AND MORRILL AND JANES BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HIAWATHA, KANSAS,
More informationPui Kum Ng Lee v Chatham Green, Inc NY Slip Op 31307(U) July 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Kelly A.
Pui Kum Ng Lee v Chatham Green, Inc. 2016 NY Slip Op 31307(U) July 11, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155485/2012 Judge: Kelly A. O'Neill Levy Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationBEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1565 JODY ALLEMAND INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TUTOR OF HIS MINOR CHILD EMILY ALLEMAND AND HIS WIFE RENEE ALLEMAND VERSUS DISCOVERY HOMES INC BRUCE SCHEXNAYDER
More informationIn this case we must decide whether Kentucky law or Illinois law governs a lawsuit arising
Third Division September 29, 2010 No. 1-09-2888 MARIA MENDEZ, as Special Administrator for the Estate ) Appeal from the of Jaime Mendez, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TUNICA COUNTY Cause No BRIEF OF APPELLEE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VS. ONE 1970 MERCURY COUGAR, YIN # OF9111545940 ONE 1992 FORD MUSTANG, YIN #FACP44E4NF173360 ONE FORD MUSTANG $355.00 U.S. CURRENCY AND WILLIE HAMPTON
More informationAPPEAL NO. # IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES C. COLOMBE, DECEASED.
APPEAL NO. # 27587 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES C. COLOMBE, DECEASED. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Wesley Colombe, as Personal
More informationtrl 5. Ann Wilson, Appellee; 7. P. Nelson Smith, Jr., Esq., Attorney for Appellee Ann Wilson; IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI trl CASE NO. 2007m-00969 FAYE JORDAN VERSUS ANN WILSON and NMMC - PLAINTIFF /APPELLANT DEFENDANTS /APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT
E-Filed Document May 6 2014 13:34:19 2013-CA-01501 Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CLARENCE JONES VERSUS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT 2013-CA-01501 APPELLEE APPEALED FROM THE
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 679 WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOY L. DIEHL AND STEVEN H. DIEHL, HER HUSBAND, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants J. DEAN GRIMES A/K/A DEAN GRIMES, v. Appellee
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS CARLA STUTTS. versus. JANICE MILLER and JACI MILLER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS-01866 CARLA STUTTS versus JANICE MILLER and JACI MILLER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALCORN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
More information