Twitter

As of right now, I do not have a Twitter account.  I am seriously thinking of experimenting with it in the next few weeks.  There are several good books on Amazon regarding using Twitter for marketing purposes.  I have several trials scheduled to start in the next few weeks.  Depending on scheduling and such, I may give it a shot in a few weeks after doing a little more research. 

Unrelated, it is also a good place to go discovery on cases of any kind.  For some reason, I have noticed that people tend to tweet stuff they would never put on Facebook.

Health Insurance

Mississippi Code Annotated §43-19-101 provides as follows:  “If the court requires the custodial parent to obtain the coverage then its cost shall be taken into account in establishing the child support award.”  The language included as shall removes the discretion element of the Court and means the Court must take it into account.   I have a case where this is an issue on reconsideration right now.  
 

Dog Liability

For some reason, I have been having a lot of cases here lately dealing with liability of dog owners.  Mississippi and Tennessee have a number of statutes dealing with liability if a dog kills livestock.  The statutes are pretty much strict liability (i.e. you own the dog, they hurt the animal, you have to pay).  There are also a number of county ordinances and even subdivision restrictions dealing with dogs running at large that are largely similar.  The old myth that a dog gets one free bite before the owner is liable is not entirely accurate. 

Consent to Divorce and Later Agreements

Myself and opposing counsel had an interesting conversation in chambers last week at a divorce trial.  Originally, the parties agreed to virtually nothing.  The parties finally entered  into a written consent to grounds for divorce with the court to decide all other issues.  By the time of trial, the parties had narrowed the issues down dramatically to a few very narrow issues that could almost have been decided with little or no testimony.  The chancellor was happy with that but called us into chambers to discuss one issue.  Mississippi Code Annotated 93-5-2 requires the consent to divorce to be in writing with what other issues for the court to decide to be laid out.  The chancellor asked us to reduce our stipulations to writing and have the parties to sign an amended consent prior to ruling on the case.  The chancellor was worried about a Reno v. Reno problem where a consent on the other issues might be reversed on appeal if it was not in writing also.  It was easy to do and offered both parties some protection in the event of an appeal.  I suspect this issue will go be addressed by the Court of Appeals at some point in the future. 

Reputation

Reputation is an interesting area to litigate.  It is subject to the limits of Rule 405 of the Rules of Evidence.  I did some thinking this morning and under Rule 803 (21), a specific exception to the hearsay rule is reputation of a person in the community or among his associates.  This might be an interesting way to get some otherwise inadmissible items in with a proper foundation being laid. 

Pre-Nup

The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided McLeod v. McLeod on Tuesday.  A copy of the opinion is located here.  The main issue in the case was whether a prenup was valid.  The trial court had found it was not.  The Court of Appeals reversed finding that a prenup that is freely negotiated is enforceable.  The trial court was reversed.  This opinion seems to lower the standards a little on prenups.  The language in the opinion indicates to me that as long as there is no actual fraud, failure to follow all the technical requirements is not necessarily fatal.

Remittitur

Remittur allows the trial court to reduce a jury verdict in certain circumstances.  Much like addittur, it is a pretty hard road.  Here is the quick rundown of the law from an appeal standpoint. 

 

Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-55 (Rev.2002), a trial court has the authority to order a remittitur if it finds “that the damages are excessive for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence.”  “Such matters are reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.”  Cade v. Walker, 771 So.2d 403, 407(¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). Whether a jury award is excessive is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the appellate court will not disturb a jury award unless the amount, in comparison to the actual damages, “shocks the conscience” of the court.   Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Bolden, 854 So.2d 1051, 1058(¶ 20) (Miss.2003).   In other words, the question is whether the verdict is “so excessive or inadequate as to indicate bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury, or [did] the jury fail[ ] to respond to reason.”  Walker v. Gann, 955 So.2d 920, 931(¶ 38) Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citation omitted).  “Due to the uncertainty of the monetary value placed on pain and suffering and future damages, [this Court] ha[s] affirmed damages up to fifty-one times the actual damages shown.”  Kroger Co., 809 So.2d at 684(¶ 11) (citations omitted).   Although we recognize that “the sky is not the limit with regard to jury verdicts,” we afford a jury “broad leeway” when it comes to an award of damages.  Cade, 771 So.2d at 410(¶ 20).

 

So as it is pretty hard to get a trial judge to raise a verdict, it is equally hard to get them to lower a verdict.