IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA ON APPEAL ApPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA ON APPEAL ApPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI"

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document May :38: CA Pages: 26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA LAVON W. COLEMAN APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPELLEE ON APPEAL ApPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI JUDGE OF THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, ALLEN B COUCH, JR. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ApPELLANT Oral Argument Requested SUBMIITED By: BY: MICHAELN. WAITS (MSB # 7002) BRADLEY T. GOLMON (MSB #10261) HOLCOMB, DUNBAR, WAITS, BEST, MASTERS & GOLMON, P.A. Post Office Drawer 707 Oxford, Mississippi (662) COUNSEL FOR ApPELLANT APPELLANT

2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO TS LAVON W. COLEMAN APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned attorney of record certifies that the following 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) Lavon W. Coleman, Appellant. 2) Michael N. Watts and Bradley T. Golmon, HOLCOMB, DUNBAR, WATTS, BEST, MASTERS & GOLMON, P.A., counsel for Appellant. 3) Mississippi Transportation Commission, Appellee. 4) Richard G. Noble, CROSTHWAIT, TERNEY & NOBLE, PLLC, counsel for Appellee. 5) Honorable Allen B. Couch, Jr., Trial Court Judge.

3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO TS LAVON W. COLEMAN APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPELLEE STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant Lavon W. Coleman respectfully requests that oral argument be granted. The issues presented in this appeal would be significantly aided by oral argument inasmuch as this appeal involves the issue of the taking of property without due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and oppression of the public by the Mississippi Transportation Commission. Oral argument should be granted in the case sub judice in an effort to promote a just and fair adjudication ofthe issues presented. 11

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS i STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv STATEMENT OF ISSUES... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW... 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS... 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 6 ARGUMENT The Trial Court improperly excluded evidence of the sum of the "quick take" deposit 7 2. The Trial Court improperly excluded questioning of the Transportation Commission's chief witness The Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for a Directed Verdict on the basis of the unrebutted testimony of the MTC appraiser The Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for a Directed Verdict 18 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE

5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Morley v. Jackson Redevelopment Authority, 632 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 1994) ,8,9, 12 United States v acres of land, 605 F.2d 762 (5 th Cir. 1979) , 10, 12 North Biloxi Development Co. v. MTC, 912 So. 2d 1118 (Miss. App. 2005) Toyota Motor Company, LTD. v. Sanford, 375 So.2d 1036,1039 (Miss. 1979) Dickey v. Parham, 295 So.2d 284,286 (Miss. 1974) Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266, 268 (Miss. 1978) Pounders v. State, 335 So.2d 904, 905 (Miss. 1976) Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 390 U.S. 390, (1949) Eason v. Weaver, 484 F.2d 459, 460 (5 th Cir. 1973) Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. 549 F.2d 314,321 (5 th Cir. 1977) Hoover v. United Services Automobile Assoc., No CA SCT, ~ 15 (Miss. November 2013) Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So.2d 209, 215 (Miss. 2006) Constitution U.S. CONST. Amend. V passim Statutes and Rules Mississippi Rule of Evidence Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801 (a)(2) Mississippi Code Section (1)-(2) , 11 IV

6 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Whether or not the Trial Court improperly excluded evidence of the sum of the "quick take" deposit? 2. Whether or not the Trial Court improperly excluded impeachment questioning of the Mississippi Transportation Commission's appraiser? 3. Whether or not the Trial Court erred in basing the grant of the Motion for Directed Verdict on the unrebutted testimony of Mississippi Transportation Commission's expert appraiser? 4. Whether or not the Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for a Directed Verdict? 1

7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE In this eminent domain case there was a stark variance between the "quick take" deposit, in the sum of $380,300.00, and the sum of the just compensation position taken by the Mississippi Transportation Commission ("MTC") in the amount of only $289, At trial the landowner, Lavon Coleman ("Coleman") attempted to enter into evidence public records from the Court's own file showing the sum of the "quick take" deposit and the notation of "FMVO" in that amount. That attempt was denied by the Court. When Coleman subsequently attempted to ask MTC's appraiser about any prior appraisal or the time frame of the just compensation appraisal, MTC objected and the Trial Court sustained the objection, denying the jury the right to hear this potential impeachment. MTC successfully moved to exclude Coleman's appraiser and on that basis alone was granted a Motion for Directed Verdict and a judgment for damages against Coleman. That Judgment, and the Order Granting Directed Verdict, were based solely on the finding that Defendant had no factual proof to contradict the opinion testimony of MTC's expert, William Milton, and as MTC had made its primajacie case, Coleman would be unable to carry her burden without some factual evidence of value. Coleman was improperly restricted from submitting contrary factual evidence of value when the Court excluded any reference to the $381, deposited by the government. Had the fact of that deposit been allowed into evidence and had it been allowed for cross examination then the valuation supporting that deposit would have come to light and Defendant would have had factual proof contrary to the testimony of Milton and the 2

8 Directed Verdict would have been denied. Further, the Directed Verdict was based on the unrebutted expert testimony of the MTC appraiser but that expert testimony was not conclusive, it was only advisory and the jury had the right to accept or reject it. The grant of the Motion for Directed Verdict was improper. This was a manifest injustice and requires reversal and remand. 3

9 COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW Mississippi Transportation Commission ("MTC") filed this eminent domain suit in the Special Court of Eminent Domain, DeSoto County, Mississippi. Excercising it's "quick take" powers pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section , MTC deposited the "quick take" sum of$380, Lavon W. Coleman ("Coleman") accepted those funds and the Court entered an Order for Immediate Possession. Despite the sum of its "quick take" deposit, at trial MTC took the position that just compensation for the taking amounted only to $289,400 and demanded judgment against Coleman for the difference. Coleman attempted to enter into evidence public records showing the sum of the "quick take" deposit but that attempt was denied by the Court. MTC put on proof of the $289,400 valuation, but none about the basis for the $381,300 "quick take" deposit. The Trial Court prevented Coleman from asking the MTC appraiser about any other appraisal he had done, about the basis for the "quick take" deposit, or even about the time frame of the $289,400 valuation. MTC successfully moved to strike Coleman's appraisal and on that basis moved for a Directed Verdict. The Trial Court granted the motion and on March 8, 2013 entered its Order Granting Directed Verdict. Coleman filed her Motion for a New Trial on March 15, The Trial Court denied that Motion for a New Trial. Coleman then filed her Notice of Appeal. 4

10 STATEMENT OF FACTS Mississippi Transportation Commission filed its eminent domain complaint against Coleman on September 7, (R. 9) Later that month, on September 30, an independent appraiser was appointed. (R. 23) On October 8, 2010 that appraiser returned his valuation in the sum of$288, (R. 28). The Court granted MTC immediate possession on October 21, (R. 45). On November 5, 2010, MTC made its "quick take" deposit in the sum of $381,300.00, $1,000 of which was intended to pay the court appointed appraiser. (R. 20, Exhibit 13-I.D.) A notation on a copy ofthe Order for Immediate Possession contains the handwritten notation "$380, FMVO." (R.20, Exhibit 13-I.D.) That $1,000 was used in that fashion leaving $380, as the actual "quick take" deposit. (R. 20, Exhibit 13-I.D.) According to Mississippi Code Annotated Section (2) that deposit must be at least 85% of the "amount of compensation and damages as determined by the appraiser...." MTC filed a Statement of Value on December 22,2010 in the sum of $289, (R.51). MTC never sought to draw down those funds and on February 23, 2011 the Court authorized Coleman, by order, to withdraw the entirety of the "quick take" deposit. MTC refused, at the trial of the case, to explain to the Court the marked difference between the "quick take" deposit and the Statement of Value and prevented Coleman from asking about the contradictory evaluations and positions taken by MTC. 5

11 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The trial court erred in excluding reference to the sum of the "quick take" deposit and further erred in refusing to allow Coleman to cross-examine the MTC appraiser about any appraisal that may have supported the deposit or the time frame of the appraisal that supported the Statement of Value. If the Trial Court had properly allowed the public record evidence of the sum of the "quick take" deposit or if the Trial Court had allowed cross examination of MTC's appraiser on those points, then contrary evidence, factual evidence that would impeach the testimony ofmtc's appraiser would have been presented and would have prevented the granting of the Motion for Directed Verdict. Further, expert appraiser testimony is only advisory to the jury and is not conclusive. The fact that it was unrebutted did not entitle MTC to a Directed Verdict. 6

12 ARGUMENT 1. The Trial Court improperly excluded evidence of the sum of the "quick take" deposit In its ruling prior to the beginning of testimony, the Court excluded all reference to any valuation that might support the "quick take" deposit. THE COURT: Okay. Well, in any event, what I do know is that this money was deposited after the filing of the complaint. Eminent domain cases are unique in that some of these offers are mandated by statute. They're required to be made, and they've got -- there's a foundation for that, and so you may not necessarily be able to escape Rule Mississippi Rule of Evidence 408. All I do know based on what has been presented to me this morning, the morning of the trial, is that this money was tendered after the claims had arisen, and the claim arises when the complaint is filed, September 17, The money was deposited a couple of months later. And, therefore, I find on what is before me that this is an offer of settlement and compromise and should be excluded. Transcript, Page 57, Lines This rationale was specifically rejected by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Morley v. Jackson Redevelopment Authority, 632 So. 2d 1284 (Miss. 1994) where the Court said to do so would prevent "the owner from entering into evidence or using as impeachment [a] highly relevant appraisal... " Morley 632 So.2d at In that case the Court reversed and remanded the case on the basis of the trial court's decision to grant a Motion in Limine to exclude a prior valuation done by an alternate government appraiser. ld. at This case had to do with the King Edward hotel in downtown Jackson. ld. at The Development Authority first hired Tate who returned an appraisal in the amount of$375, ld. The Development Authority then offered that sum to the property owners and it was rejected. ld. Subsequent to 7

13 that date the Development Authority hired Davis who returned a valuation of $865, Id. The Authority offered that to the landowners and the landowners rejected it.!d. At trial, the government presented only the appraisal of Tate in the amount of $375, !d. at A Motion in Limine was filed to exclude all reference to the higher valuation prepared by Davis.!d. at The Court granted that Motion in Limine, excluding the higher valuation prepared by the condemning authority.!d. The owner appealed. The issue on appeal was whether or not the trial court erred in excluding the Davis appraisal. The Supreme Court stated that the decision was error. "[T]he trial court's decision to grant the Motion in Limine improperly prevented the owners from entering into evidence or using as impeachment the highly relevant appraisal done by Davis."!d. at The ultimate result was that the case was reversed and remanded back to the Special Court of Eminent Domain.!d. at That should be the resolution of this appeal. The basis for the exclusion of this fact, not opinion, evidence was that Mississippi Rule of Evidence 408 excludes offers of settlement. The error is that Rule 408 was applied far more broadly than it is even written. MTC argued that any reference to the $380, on deposit would violate Mississippi Rule of Evidence 408 and the Court agreed. However, the Court in Morley stated just the opposite. "[T]his does not dispose of the question of whether the appraisal on which the offer is based is inadmissible, since Rule 408 further provides that, 'This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations."'!d. at The appraisal behind the "quick take" sum, and the "quick take" sum itself was a statement against interest. In Morley, the Mississippi Supreme Court also found that the decision 8

14 of the "condemning authority supporting the valuation was a statement against interest under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). Id. at In the case below, no one forced the government to deposit $380, just one month after the Brewer appraisal was filed, with a valuation of$288,455.00, and six or seven weeks before the government's own SOY was filed, with a valuation of $289, The government never sought to draw down those funds to 85% of $289, Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801 (a)(2) nonverbal conduct can be a statement if "it is intended by the person to be an assertion." What is the point of a deposit of funds in a quick take action? The point is to comply with Mississippi Code Section (2), which mandates a deposit of at least 85% of the "amount of the compensation and damages as determined by the appraiser..." Subsection (1) provides that upon that deposit, the Court may enter an order for immediate title and entry. In this case, the Order Granting Immediate Possession was filed more than two weeks before the deposit was even made. If the deposit is 85% of "the amount of the compensation and damages as determined by the appraiser" then the government may have a valuation in the amount of$447,411.76, but Coleman was not allowed to question the government about this valuation. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agrees with Morley. The Court in Morley, relied on United States v acres of land, 605 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1979). In that case, the Fifth Circuit was dealing with a series of bench trials, consolidated for appeal, which had to do with condemnation ofland for Everglades National Park acres, 605 F.2d at 768. The trial court excluded testimony relating to the pre-trial offers by the government. Id. at Early offers to two landowners were in the amount of $80, and $20, respectively. Id. at 823. At trial the government only presented evidence that the just 9

15 compensation was $64, and $12, for these two landowners. Id. at 824. One of the landowners sought to introduce the earlier valuation as a statement against interest, but the trial court excluded that proof. Id. at The Fifth Circuit found that the trial court committed error in excluding that proof, stating that while such pre-trial valuations were not binding on the government, they were admissible to impeach the government. Id. at 825. The government could present testimony to explain the difference, but the difference was admissible. Id. "[T]he Government is not completely free to play fast and loose with landowners in telling them one thing in the office and something else in the courtroom." Id. That's just what MTC did in this case, and those actions were contrary to Morley and contrary to acres a/land. MTC is hiding something and it could be a valuation in the sum of$447,411.76, if the "quick take" deposit is 85% of the valuation. Another decision by the Mississippi Court of Appeals informs that the details of the "quick take" process may generally be disclosed to the jury. In North Biloxi Development Co. v. MTC, 912 So. 2d 1118 (Miss. App. 2005), MTC sought jury instruction P-2: The Mississippi Transportation Commission is entitled to acquire property for highway purposes through statutory procedures and the deposit of funds for the benefit of the landowner as ordered by the Court. In this case, the Mississippi Transportation Commission was awarded title and possession of the property on October 18, 2001 by Order ofthis Court. In your decision to award just compensation you shall not consider the fact that the Mississippi Transportation Commission has acquired the subject property and begun construction of the new highway. North Biloxi, 912 So.2d at The landowner objected to this instruction, Id. at 1124, but the trial court allowed it, finding that it was proper. On appeal, the Court stated "Instruction P-2 was necessary to explain the authority of MTC to take a property by eminent domain and was a correct statement of the so called 'quick 10

16 take law.' The fact that the instruction tells the jury that there has been a deposit of funds to the benefit of the landowner by MTC is no more than a summary of Mississippi Code Annotated Section (2) (Rev 2004)." Id. at The instruction provided a true and correct statement of the statutory procedure involving the eminent domain quick take process and there was no error in disclosing that the truth of that process to the jury. In the court below Coleman was attempting to disclose the truth of the "quick take" process to the jury, but the court prevented her from making any reference whatsoever to the "quick take" deposit of $380, Despite the highly relevant fact that it was deposited by the government and was bookended on either side by statements relating to value that were approximately $100, less, Coleman could not pursue that line of questioning and was denied the powerful impeachment value of it. This is a monumental discrepancy and the government must have had some reason why it made this deposit. The reasons for this deposit and the truth about this deposit were hidden from the jury. Why did MTC deposit those funds? No one knows because the government is hiding that information. No one knows because they would not answer that question in discovery. No one knows because the Defendant could not ask about it at trial. Because this highly relevant proof never got to the jury, this case should be reversed and remanded. 2. The Trial Court improperly excluded questioning of the Transportation Commission's chief witness After the Court excluded the public record evidence of the "quick take" deposit, Coleman attempted to question MTC's appraiser about any other valuation he may have performed. The testimony, objection and ruling were as follows: Q. Yes, sir, and I'm going to read this. 11

17 "Were you involved in any kind of initial preliminary appraisals on this property?" MR. NOBLE: Your Honor, may we - THE COURT: Approach. MR. NOBLE: May we approach? THE COURT: Approach. (WHEREUPON, A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH AMONG COURT AND ALL COUNSEL OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE JURY AS FOLLOWS:) MR. NOBLE: You've already ruled. We've already argued it. Prenegotiation, fair market value offer, that's where he's going, Your Honor. MR. WATTS: No, it's not. MR. NOBLE: I object completely. MR. WAITS: That's not where I'm going. It's going to the fact that he testified that his -- that his opinion was done close in time. It wasn't done close in time. It was done in February of He admitted it in his deposition. He just testified on direct that the closer in time you get the more accurate it is. Yet, he did it In February of MR. NOBLE: Your Honor, we've ruled -- you've ruled on the prenegotiation, fair market. You've got by Federal mandate to make that prenegotiation appraisal, to make that offer. MR. WATTS: It has nothing to do with the -- MR. NOBLE: It's exactly -- Mike, it's exactly what it is. THE COURT: Let me see the deposition. MR. NOBLE: Look at it. He's got to do that before by statute, Your Honor. THE COURT: I understand. He's also testified that he did one after the date of filing. MR. NOBLE: After filing my appraisal came in. THE COURT: Okay. In addition to that? MR. NOBLE: Right. MR. WATTS: I didn't hear him say it in direct, Your Honor. Maybe I missed it. THE COURT: I heard it. I'm going to sustain that. Do not go anywhere near that. Transcript Page 133, lines and 134 lines The witness for the MTC clearly performed an earlier appraisal and a later appraisal. On direct he testified that he performed an appraisal after the date of filing and the Court confirmed that above. Under Morley and acres of 12

18 land Coleman should have been allowed to question this witness concerning the time frame of his examination and whether he had performed any other examinations and if he knew of any valuation that supported the "quick take" deposit. But the court told Coleman "Do not go anywhere near that." It was error to do so. This case should be reversed and remanded. 3. The unrebutted testimony of the appraiser was insufficient for the grant of a Motion for Directed Verdict The court below granted the Motion for a Directed Verdict because the expert appraisal opinion testimony of the MTC appraiser was unrebutted. THE COURT: Well, a motion for direct verdict is, I guess, very similar to a summary judgment in that there are no disputed facts left to present to a jury, and that it only -- what remains is a question of law. Eminent domain is a bit unique in civil law in that there is a shifting of burdens in the trial. Citing this Petri case, again, that I mentioned a couple of times, Gulf South Pipeline vs. Petri, 35 So.3d 494, which cites a much older case, Ellis vs. Mississippi State Highway Commission found at 487 So.2d 1339, puts forth the rule in eminent domain that once the plaintiff, the condemning authority, makes a prima facie case for damages the burden shifts to the landowner, and for the landowner to receive more compensation than is shown, he must go forward with evidence showing such damage. And in this particular case, the defendant landowner will be unable to do so because of the exclusion of the appraisal testimony. So with that I'm going to grant the plaintiffs motion for directed verdict in the amount established by Mr. Milton, $289,400. If you will, prepare an order to that effect. MR. NOBLE: Yes, sir. Transcript Page 175, Lines The testimony of the MTC appraiser was that, in his expert opinion, the value of the taken property was $289,400. This was his opinion. The jury should have been allowed to consider that opinion and accept or reject it. The Mississippi Model Jury instruction states the proposition in this way: During the trial, you heard testimony from an expert witness. The law allows an expert witness to give [hislher] opinion about issues in [hislher] area of expertise even if [he/she] did not witness any ofthe actions or events involved in this trial. 13

19 You do not have to accept the expert witness's opinion. As with any other witness, it is up to you to decide whether you believe the expert witness's testimony and whether you choose to use it as a basis for your decision in this case. You may believe all, a part, or none of the expert witness's testimony. Model Instruction No. 213 Expert Witness testimony MTC's expert appraisal testimony was just opinion testimony and was merely advisory to the JUry. The Mississippi Supreme Court, in Toyota Motor Company, LTD. v. Sanford, reinstated a jury verdict that had been increased by the trial judge to a dollar figure described by an unrebutted expert economist. 375 So.2d 1036,1039 (Miss. 1979). The expert economist had testified that damages amounted to $157, Sanford, 375 So.2d at This was "based largely, if not entirely upon the testimony of an 'expert economist.,,, Id The jury had returned a verdict of only $40, Id The Supreme Court ruled that the unrebutted testimony of the expert economist was merely advisory and the jury was well within its rights to return a verdict at variance with that unrebutted expert testimony. Id at The additur was reversed and the jury verdict reinstated. Id In Dickey v. Parham there was expert economist testimony on the issue of future earnings and that testimony, unrebutted, was that the proper sum was $162, So.2d 284,286 (Miss. 1974). The Court there stated "[o]f course, such testimony is only advisory and is not binding upon the court." Dickey, 295 So.2d 286. In that case the jury verdict was so "grossly inadequate as to require reversal" but the unrebutted expert testimony was not substituted for the jury verdict, it was remanded, so that a subsequently impaneled jury could assess the damages. Id 14

20 This principle, that unrebutted expert testimony is not conclusive, can also be found in criminal cases. Unrebutted expert testimony on the issue of the sanity of a criminal defendant is not conclusive. Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266, 268 (Miss. 1978); Pounders v. State, 335 So.2d 904,905 (Miss. 1976). In both of those cases expert psychiatrists testified that the accused did not appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions and did not know those actions were wrong and in both cases the Mississippi Supreme Court stated "[t]he expert opinions of the psychiatrists were not conclusive upon that issue." Williams, 354 So.2d at 268; Pounders, 335 So.2d at 905. This principle has also been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. In Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., the Court affirmed a lower court decision to select a 20% profit margin, rather than the unrebutted testimony ofthe experts. 390 U.S. 390, (1949). Experts had testified that the profit margin was between 5% and 12%. Sheldon, 390 U.S. at 408. That testimony was entirely unrebutted. Id. It was, however, rejected by the trial court and the trial court imposed a 20% profit margin. Id. This was affirmed with the following statement: "But the court below was not willing to accept the experts' testimony 'at face value.'"!d. The finder of fact, whether the Court or the jury, is free to accept or reject unimpeached expert valuation testimony. The United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit has stated that unimpeached expert opinion testimony may be actually ignored by the find of fact. In Eason v. Weaver, the finder of fact was a judge. "The weight to be accorded to unimpeached expert opinion evidence is solely for the judge sitting without a jury. While he may consider such testimony, he is not bound to accept it." Eason v. Weaver, 484 F.2d 459,460 (5 th Cir. 1973). While that was an automobile 15

21 accident diversity case, it did involve a damages calculation on lost wages. Eason, 484 F.2d at 460. An expert for the plaintifftestified as to that calculation, but the trial judge, sitting as the finder of fact, rejected that testimony and on appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 460. This proposition was again repeated by the Fifth Circuit in Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. 549 F.2d 314,321 (5 th Cir. 1973). In that case the Court entered a damages verdict varying from the unimpeached expert testimony that was presented. Davis, 549 F.2d at 321. That expert had testified to a discount rate of 2.9 percent, but the trial court applied a rate of 5.4 percent. On appeal the Fifth Circuit, affirmed, but on remand asked the trial court to recalculate using a discount rate of 6 percent. Id. at 335. The Fifth Circuit did not require the finder of fact to accept the unimpeached expert testimony. Our Supreme Court recently rejected the kind of argument made by MTC, finding that even in the face of "overwhelming" proof that damage to a structure was of an excluded type, homeowners were still entitled to a jury determination of the sum of damages. Hoover v. United Services Automobile Assoc., No CA SCT, ~ 15 (Miss. November 2013). In that case homeowners sued their insurer for failure to pay a claim. ~ 1. At trial they put on proof of damages. ~ 2. The defendant then put on proof, uncontradicted and "overwhelming" that the cause of the casualty was excluded by the terms of the policy. ~ 5. The trial court agreed and directed a verdict for the insurer, specifically finding that the Plaintiff "should have put on something to show that it was other than surge..." and because they did not, the insurer should prevail. ~ 15. On appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded. ~ 30. Despite the "overwhelming" proof and the fact that the Plaintiff had not evidence to contradict the 16

22 insurer's expert, the Court found that it was for the jury to decide, specifically stating that for remand. ~ 3 1. The Mississippi Supreme Court, even within the boundaries of an eminent domain case, allows the jury to accept or reject expert opinion testimony. We have long held that the jury may reject or accept any expert testimony it chooses in cases involving land valuation. "The jury in the trial of a case of this kind is not required to accept the opinion evidence of an expert witness who testifies for the land owner or the county. The jury may disregard the testimony of a witness whose testimony the jury has reasonable grounds to believe is worthless." Warren County v. Harris, 211 Miss. 80, 88, 50 So.2d 918,920 (1951). In addition, the jury had the opportunity to inspect the subject land in this case, and was to use this, too, in coming to its decision. "The opinions of experts as to values in cases of this kind are not to be passively received and blindly followed, but are to be weighed by the jury and judged in view of all of the testimony in the case and the jury's own general knowledge of affairs, and are to be given only such consideration as the jury may believe them entitled to receive." Id. at 921. This rule is often cited in Mississippi case law. See, e.g., Miss. State Highway Comm In v. Madison County, 242 Miss. 471, 480, 135 So.2d 708, 712 (1961); N. Biloxi Dev. Co., L.L.C. v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n, 912 So.2d 1118,1126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005); Bishop v. Miss. Transp. Comm 'n, 734 So.2d 218,222 (Miss. Ct. App.1999). Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So.2d 209,215 (Miss. 2006)(emphasis added). The Court below granted the Motion for Directed Verdict on the basis of unrebutted opinion testimony, when the jury was seated as the finder of fact. In this case the jury even went to the site and examined the property themselves, acquiring first hand factual knowledge of the premises. This personal knowledge and investigation was entirely ignored by the Trial Court when the Motion for Directed Verdict was granted. Expert opinions are only advisory, but the Court below treated this testimony as fact. The only facts in the record are the knowledge gained by the jury members as they viewed the premises and the jury should have had the fact of the 17

23 prior MTC valuation and admission of value, also a fact. The opinion of the MTC appraiser was just opinion, and not fact at all. The jury had factual knowledge of the premises and the unrebutted expert testimony of the MTC appraiser. The jury should have had the fact of the sum ofthe "quick take" deposit. The only reason the MTC expert appraisal testimony was unrebutted was because the Trial Court did not allow Coleman to pursue the line of questioning described above. But even unrebutted, the jury was free to accept or reject this expert opinion testimony. The grant ofthe Directed Verdict took that choice away and was improper. 4. The Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for a Directed Verdict The trial court should have allowed Coleman to introduce the factual proof regarding the "quick take" deposit made by MTC. The trial court should have allowed Coleman to cross examine MTC's appraiser about the "quick take" deposit and the valuation behind that deposit. Even without this evidence, the grant of the Motion for a Directed Verdict was improper as the basis for it was the unrebutted expert testimony ofmtc's expert appraiser. That testimony was only advisory and non binding on the jury. The fact ofthe $380, "quick take" deposit is very important. It is not an opinion, it is a fact and a statement against interest. That fact, when coupled with rudimentary mathematics, leads to some very interesting figures, demonstrating the relevance of that fact. $380, divided by acres, the total acreage of the take, is $20, This per acre value is just 2% higher per acre than Coleman Statement of Value but it is one-third higher than the MTC Statement of Value. This is a fact, and would have mandated the denial of the motion for directed verdict. $380, divided by.85 amounts to $447,41l.76. On remand 18

24 the MTC should answer whether or not it has a valuation in this sum or any other valuation other than what their appraiser testified to at trial. MTC can vary the proof it presents at trial from its course of dealing with the landowner, but they cannot pretend that the course of dealing never happened. They are not free to play fast and loose with Coleman by asserting a later lower valuation while hiding a prior higher valuation. CONCLUSION The only incontrovertible truth available regarding value is that the government deposited $380, MTC's expert appraiser was just providing opinion testimony and that testimony was merely advisory. The deposit of the $380, is a fact and a statement against interest, but the jury was not given that fact. If the truth regarding that $380, deposit had been presented to the jury, and, according to Morley and acres of land it should have been, and if Defendant had been afforded the opportunity to cross examine MTC' s appraiser regarding that deposit, and she should have been, then she would have had a factual basis with which to oppose the MTC valuation and the case would not have been proper for a directed verdict as this fact supports a possible valuation of $447, The Court based the grant of a directed verdict on the unrebutted testimony of the MTC appraiser. That unrebutted testimony was just advisory to the jury, it was not conclusive. The jury had its own examination of the premises, and should have had the evidence of the "quick take" deposit. The grant of the Motion for Directed verdict was improper. This matter should be remanded with instructions that Coleman should be able to inquire into the basis of the "quick 19

25 take" deposit of the $380, and Coleman should be allowed to cross examine the MTC appraiser regarding any other MTC valuation of the premises. RespectfuUy submitted this the J~~ of ~ BY~~ MI ~. WATTS,MSB#7002 BRADLEY T. GOLMON, MSB #10261 Attorneys of Record for Appellant Of Counsel: HOLCOMB, DUNBAR, WATTS, BEST, MASTERS & GOLMON, P.A. 400 South Lamar Boulevard, Suite A Post Office Drawer 707 Oxford, Mississippi Telephone: (662) Facsimile: (662)

26 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I, Bradley T. Golmon of HOLCOMB, DUNBAR, WATTS, BEST, MASTERS & GOLMON, P.A., attorney of record for the Appellant, Lavon W. Coleman, certify that I have this day filed via MEC filing system and forwarded via Federal Express, Overnight Delivery, the original and four (4) copies, along with one (1) copy contained on electronic media, of the foregoing Brief of Appellant to the Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme Court, and one (1) true and correct copy of the same to the following individuals via United States Postal Service, First Class Mail: Hon. Judge Allen B. Couch, Jr. Special Court of Eminent Domain, DeSoto County, MS 2535 Hwy. 51 South Hernando, MS Richard G. Noble Crosthwait, Terney & Noble, PLLC Post Office Box 29 Indianola, Mississippi Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee This the /~~ fmay,

NO CA Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NO 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 information

E-Filed Document Sep :10: CA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.

E-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 information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Feb 2 2018 15:26:36 2017-KA-01455-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LADALE AIROSTEVE HOLLOWAY APPELLANT v. No. 2017-KA-01455-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO: 2009-CA AMERICA'S HOME PLACE, INC. APPELLEE'S BRIEF

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jun 23 2016 20:34:03 2015-CA-01808 Pages: 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ARLENE CAROTHERS APPELLANT VS. CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA-01808 APPELLEES BRIEF

More information

IN 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 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Sep 15 2015 14:14:52 2015-CP-00265-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TIMOTHY BURNS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-00265-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Aug 21 2014 17:48:58 2014-KA-00188-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JEFFREY ALLEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-00188-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

v. No CA SCT DOROTHY L. BARNETT, et al. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY NO CIV ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

v. 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 information

NO KA COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRYN ELLIS APPELLANT, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE.

NO KA COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRYN ELLIS APPELLANT, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE. E-Filed Document May 29 2015 11:28:47 2013-KA-02000-COA Pages: 11 NO. 2013-KA-02000-COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRYN ELLIS APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE. ON APPEAL

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document May 22 2017 21:22:44 2016-KA-01351-COA Pages: 16 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES LEE BRENT APPELLANT V. NO. 2016-KA-01351-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903

IN 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 information

PETITION FOR REHEARING

PETITION FOR REHEARING E-Filed Document Mar 6 2018 19:55:11 2016-KA-00932-COA Pages: 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-KA-00932-COA JACARRUS ANTYONE PICKETT APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA TODD KUHN and ANGELA T. KUHN BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA TODD KUHN and ANGELA T. KUHN BRIEF OF APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jun 8 2017 11:12:57 2017-CA-00092 Pages: 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-00092 CHERYL L. HIGH APPELLANT v. TODD KUHN and ANGELA T. KUHN APPELLEES Appeal from the Harrison

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK J. HIGGINS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK J. HIGGINS E-Filed Document Jun 2 2015 00:01:29 2014-CA-00251 Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK J. HIGGINS APPELLANT v. No. 2014-CA-00251 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLANT

More information

APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS

APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS E-Filed Document Jul 27 2015 10:07:44 2014-CA-01378-SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CA-01378 THE CITY OF TUPELO, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE V. TERRY Y.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Aug 28 2015 11:05:44 2014-KA-01230-COA Pages: 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TIMMY DAVIS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-01230 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED E-Filed Document Apr 8 2016 14:20:08 2015-CC-01422 Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY vs. VS. ARDERS

More information

E-Filed Document May :25: CA Pages: 18. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No.: 2013-CA-01006

E-Filed Document May :25: CA Pages: 18. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No.: 2013-CA-01006 E-Filed Document May 12 2014 14:25:52 2013-CA-01006 Pages: 18 2013-CA-01006 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No.: 2013-CA-01006 C.H. MILES APPELLANT V. BRENDA C. MILES APPELLEE APPELLEE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VIJAY PATEL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR OF NATWAREL PATEL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VIJAY PATEL INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR OF NATWAREL PATEL E-Filed Document Aug 24 2015 15:39:23 2015-CA-00371 Pages: 15 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VIJAY PATEL INDIVIDUALLY PLAINTIFFS AND AS ADMINISTRATOR AND WRONGFUL DEATH HEIR OF NATWAREL

More information

E-Filed Document Jun :00: CC Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

E-Filed Document Jun :00: CC Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Jun 17 2015 16:00:09 2014-CC-01798 Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-CC-01798 OVER THE RAINBOW DAYCARE vs. VS. MISSISSIPPI

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO TS-01200

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO TS-01200 E-Filed Document Mar 21 2014 23:59:24 2013-CA-01200 Pages: 16 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-TS-01200 HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT VS. ANNA JURGENSON; AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC; AGELESS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Mar 29 2018 15:36:58 2017-KA-01112-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JEFFREY MARTIN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-TS-01112 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Jan 8 2016 13:04:43 2014-KA-01838-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ROBERT W. TRIPLETT a/k/a ROBERT WARREN TRIPLETT, JR. a/k/a ROBERT TRIPLETT, JR. a/k/a

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jul 29 2016 14:31:24 2014-CT-00615-SCT Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CT-00615-SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT E-Filed Document Dec 2 2016 16:11:11 2016-CA-00678 Pages: 11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CA-00678 CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT VS BEN ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE

BRIEF 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 information

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

ORAL 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 information

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS E-Filed Document Jan 3 2017 15:44:13 2016-WC-00842-COA Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI SHANNON ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MS, INC. APPELLANTS

More information

llpage IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CA APPELLANT BENNIE E. BRASWELL, JR.

llpage IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CA APPELLANT BENNIE E. BRASWELL, JR. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CA-02000 BENNIE E. BRASWELL, JR. APPELLANT V. BETH STINNETT, D.D.S., INDIVIDUALLY AND D /B/ A FAMILY DENISTRY APPELLEES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED E-Filed Document Jan 13 2014 16:30:11 2013-CA-01004 Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ARTHUR GERALD HUDSON and LINDA HUDSON VS. LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2013-CA-01004

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Oral Argument Requested

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Oral Argument Requested // :: PM CV 1 1 1 MICHAEL BOYLE, v. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Plaintiff, CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation, Defendant. FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH Oral Argument Requested Case

More information

REPLY BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA FRANKLIN CORPORATION AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU

REPLY BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA FRANKLIN CORPORATION AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU E-Filed Document Oct 2 2014 21:28:49 2013-CA-00524-COA Pages: 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-00524 CINDY WALLS APPELLANT V. FRANKLIN CORPORATION AND EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Jun 16 2014 10:52:26 2013-KM-01129-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI D'ANDRE TERRELL APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. Cause No KA KIMBERLY ANN WHITEHEAD, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. Cause No KA KIMBERLY ANN WHITEHEAD, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee E-Filed Document May 1 2015 11:58:24 2014-KA-00697 Pages: 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI Cause No. 2014-KA-00697 KIMBERLY ANN WHITEHEAD, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee APPEAL FROM

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-KA SCT OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-KA SCT OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CG ljvw SYLVESTER BRANCH NO.2007-KA-00579-SCT FILED MAY 2 3 2008 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS VERSUS APPELLANT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB 9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jun 1 2015 20:59:33 2013-KA-02110-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NATHANIEL HAMPTON APPELLANT V. NO. 2013-KA-02110-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI 2011-CA-OI040

SUPREME 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 information

IN 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 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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NUMBER 2015-KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NUMBER 2015-KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR APPELLANT E-Filed Document Mar 22 2016 11:54:28 2015-KA-00623-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NUMBER 2015-KA-00623 DENNIS THOMPSON APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2008-CP STEVEN EASON APPELLANT. On Appeal From the Circuit Court of Greene County, Mississippi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2008-CP STEVEN EASON APPELLANT. On Appeal From the Circuit Court of Greene County, Mississippi IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2008-CP-01499 STEVEN EASON APPELLANT vs. CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, ALICIA BOX and RONALD KING APPELLEES On Appeal From the Circuit Court of Greene County, Mississippi

More information

E-Filed Document Dec :19: CA Pages: 17

E-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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document May 18 2016 17:53:03 2015-CA-01405 Pages: 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2015-TS-01405 FRANK BEATON APPELLANT vs. CAPSCO INDUSTRIES, INC. and CHRISTOPHER KILLION APPELLEES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT DAVID GLENN NUNNERY, ET AL. V. ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF PIKE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN 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 information

E-Filed Document Jun :33: KA COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.

E-Filed Document Jun :33: KA COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. E-Filed Document Jun 2 2017 08:33:26 2017-KA-00177-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-KA-00177-COA CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOINER APPELLANT V. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GEORGE LEE BUTLER APPELLANT v. NO. 200S-KA-0883-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF I~APPEALS Erin E. Pridgen,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN 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 information

REPLY BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

REPLY BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jul 10 2017 16:56:22 2016-KA-01527-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RODISE JENKINS APPELLANT V. NO. 2016-KA-01527-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE REPLY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01918-COA LORANN ANN COLEMAN APPELLANT v. CHRISTOPHER SMITH, GRAND CASINOS, INCORPORATED, BL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND PARK PLACE ENTERTAINMENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE N ca NO.2014-ca-00984

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA-00598

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA-00598 E-Filed Document Jun 8 2016 13:37:33 2015-CA-00598-SCT Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-00598 THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, BY AND THROUGH DELBERT HOSEMANN, IN HIS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN OF WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN OF WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document May 11 2017 09:19:18 2016-CA-00928-COA Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No.2016-CA-00928-COA CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. vs. VS. ARTHUR E. WOOD, III, AND PAULA WOOD APPELLANT

More information

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO CV. FREDERICK DEWAYNNE WALKER, Appellant

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO CV. FREDERICK DEWAYNNE WALKER, Appellant Opinion issued June 18, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-07-00867-CV FREDERICK DEWAYNNE WALKER, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Apr 22 2014 15:58:43 2013-CP-00239-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SHELBY RAY PARHAM APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-TS-01434 JERMORRIS PILCHER APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CIRCUIT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY,

More information

V. CASE NO CA-00669

V. CASE NO CA-00669 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES DAVID BRYANT, JR. APPELLANT V. CASE NO. 2011-CA-00669 PAMELA RENE SMITH BRYANT APPELLEE ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF LAWRENCE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

More information

1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CC BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CC BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 1- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2008-CC-02142 MARGIE BROWN PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT VS. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND W AL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. DEFENDANT/APPELLEES

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

THE 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 information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Apr 6 2016 16:21:36 2014-KA-01520-COA Pages: 15 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI KENNY STEWART APPELLANT V. NO. 2014-KA-01520-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-KA COA VERSUS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-KA COA VERSUS CO,d""'Y.. ~.,"", 6',,s IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2007-KA-00236-COA FILED BOBBY L. TRAVIS MAR a 6 2008 OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT APPELLANT COURT OF APPEALS VERSUS STATE

More information

Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case 1:13-cv EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Case 1:13-cv-00139-EGB Document 120 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SEQUOIA PACIFIC SOLAR I, LLC, ) and EIGER LEASE CO, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 13-139-C

More information

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI E-Filed Document May 11 2016 11:16:48 2014-CT-00615-SCT Pages: 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN A/K/A BOOTY VS. APPELLANT NO. 2014-KA-00615-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Jan 8 2016 15:29:22 2014-KA-00201-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI XAVIER LARRY APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-00201-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 18:30:21 2015-KA-00898-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GREGORY LORENZO PRITCHETT APPELLANT V. NO. 2015-KA-00898-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI FILED MAR OFFICE OFTHE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI FILED MAR OFFICE OFTHE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GOP~ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI KRISTOPHER R. PEACOCK VS. FILED MAR 2 6 2007 OFFICE OFTHE CLERK SUPREME COURT COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT NO. 2005-KA-2190 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES CRAIG PALCULICT REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES CRAIG PALCULICT REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES CRAIG PALCULICT VS. LUCIANA GASCON CURTIS PALCULICT APPELLANT CAUSE NO.: 2007-CA-019S4 APPELLEE REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY

More information

IN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT CASE NO KA HOSAN M. AZOMANI, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT CASE NO KA HOSAN M. AZOMANI, Appellant. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI E-Filed Document Dec 12 2016 13:11:01 2015-CT-00050-SCT Pages: 11 IN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 2015-KA-00050 HOSAN M. AZOMANI, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee PETITION FOR WRIT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Jul 22 2015 12:14:02 2015-CP-00008-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHNNY HOLTON APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-00008 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR

More information

E-Filed Document Jul :13: EC SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

E-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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Feb 27 2017 15:41:09 2016-CA-01033-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MICHAEL ISHEE APPELLANT VS. NO. 2016-CA-01033-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING E-Filed Document May 3 2017 12:58:02 2015-CA-01650-COA Pages: 8 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA-01650 DERRICK DORTCH APPELLANT vs. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE MOTION FOR REHEARING

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHN ANTHONY MAGYAR APPELLANT VS. NO.2007-CA-0740 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA

More information

IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS 2015-CA JOSHUA HOWARD Appellant-Defendant v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee-Plaintiff

IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS 2015-CA JOSHUA HOWARD Appellant-Defendant v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee-Plaintiff E-Filed Document May 10 2016 11:30:53 2015-CA-01496 Pages: 9 IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS 2015-CA-01496 JOSHUA HOWARD Appellant-Defendant v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee-Plaintiff BRIEF OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00702

IN 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT of APPEALS of the STATE of MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT of APPEALS of the STATE of MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document May 12 2016 21:16:49 2015-CA-01801 Pages: 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT of APPEALS of the STATE of MISSISSIPPI EARL AND MAXCINE ROSS vs. VS. SHELLIE R. STEW ART APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CHRISTOPHER THOMAS LEWIS BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CHRISTOPHER THOMAS LEWIS BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CHRISTOPHER THOMAS LEWIS APPELLANT VS. NO.2008-KA-1l19-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

More information

E-Filed Document Dec :16: IA SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CIVIL ACTION NO.

E-Filed Document Dec :16: IA SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CIVIL ACTION NO. E-Filed Document Dec 22 2016 15:16:12 2016-IA-00571-SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI FAWAZ ABDRABBO, MD. APPELLANT VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2016-IA-00571-SCT AUDRAY (ANDRES) JOHNSON (PRO SE)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CP APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CP APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. E-Filed Document Aug 18 2017 15:49:36 2016-CP-01539 Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2016-CP-01539 BRENT RYAN PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT v. LOWNDES COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER, ET AL.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA APPELLEE / CROSS-APPELLANT LOUISE TAYLOR REPLY BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANT BRENDA FORTENBERRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA APPELLEE / CROSS-APPELLANT LOUISE TAYLOR REPLY BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANT BRENDA FORTENBERRY E-Filed Document Feb 1 2017 18:41:34 2015-CA-01369-SCT Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI JOHNSON & JOHNSON, Inc., and ORTHO-McNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, Inc. APPELLANTS / CROSS-APPELLEES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI THE ESTATE OF ELSIE LUSTER THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, LARRY GUSMAN VERSUS MARDI GRAS CASINO CORP. APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session 03/14/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session XINGKUI GUO V. WOODS & WOODS, PP Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C3765 Hamilton V. Gayden,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Nov 14 2017 13:53:28 2017-KA-00436-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JULIUS BENDER APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-KA-00436-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jun 14 2017 16:56:06 2016-KA-01711-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NATHANIEL MCKEITHAN APPELLANT V. NO. 2016-KA-01711-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

More information

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT v. WATSON Cite as 564 S.E.2d 453 (Ga.App. 2002)

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT v. WATSON Cite as 564 S.E.2d 453 (Ga.App. 2002) contends that the foundation was insufficient because the State failed to sufficiently qualify Barnhart as an expert regarding drug use. Because lack of foundation has no single defined meaning, an objection

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC Lower Tribunal Case No.: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOSEPH R. REDNER, Petitioner, v. Supreme Court Case No.: SC03-1612 Lower Tribunal Case No.: 96-02652 CITY OF TAMPA, Respondent. PETITIONER S FIRST AMENDED JURISDICTIONAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA SCT WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER TUCKER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA SCT WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER TUCKER E-Filed Document Nov 12 2015 22:59:01 2013-CA-02100-SCT Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2013-CA-02100-SCT WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER TUCKER APPELLANT VS. GAY ST. MARY WILLIAMS AND LARRY

More information

Cite as 2019 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Cite as 2019 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Cite as 2019 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-47 Opinion Delivered: April 11, 2019 KW-DW PROPERTIES, LLC; DEBRA A. LANG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WHITE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR; SUE LILES, IN

More information

IN 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 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 information

FILED MAR BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REOUESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. CASE NO tlb2082 NANCYLOIT

FILED 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 information

BRIEF OF APPELLEES I CROSS-APPELLANTS

BRIEF 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA-1414-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO IA SCT BRIEF OF APPELLANTS (NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA-1414-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO IA SCT BRIEF OF APPELLANTS (NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ONNAM BILOXI, LLC VERSUS RAS FAMILY PARTNERS, LP and RAY S. SIMS RAS FAMILY PARTNERS, LP and RAY A. SIMS VERSUS ONNAM BILOXI, LLC CONSOLIDATED WITH APPELLANTDEFENDANT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA STEVENS AUCTION COMPANY and JOHN D.

SUPREME 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN 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 information

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs. 0 0 STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT WILLIAM TURNER, vs. Plaintiff, CV-0- ROZELLA BRANSFORD, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS On the th day of November 0, at

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARILYN NEWSOME

IN 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 information