Alienation of Affection Jurisdiction

The Mississippi Supreme Court decided Francesca Nordness v. Paige Faucheaux yesterday.  The case gives detailed information concerning personal jurisdiction in an alienation of affection case.  The main issue in the case was that Nordness never knew Faucheaux's husband was a Mississippi resident.  The relevant language from the opinion is below. 

"Our review of United States Supreme Court precedent makes it abundantly clear that our courts cannot constitutionally assert personal jurisdiction over Francesca in this case. And our own jurisprudence supports this holding. In every case where Mississippi courts have exercised personal jurisdiction over nonresident paramours, our courts have made it clear that the paramours knew they were engaged in a relationship with a person from Mississippi."

This case also has an extremely detailed discussion of personal jurisdiction for other cases. 

Daubert Testimony

The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Leslie Stingley v. Trinity Highway Products, et al.  on Tuesday.  Stingley was doing 65 mph on I-20 in Clinton when he passed out and hit the guardrail.  He ended up having one of his legs amputated below the knee.  He filed suit against the designers, testers, manufacturers of the “Regent C”  guardrail as well as the contractor and subcontractor who installed it.  The trial court granted summary judgment on the design of the guard rail.  This case has some very detailed discussions regarding the interplay of Daubert, product liability, and sufficiency of the testimony.  The majority viewed the evidence as sufficient to exclude the expert because the opinion had not been subjected to peer review.  There is a pretty strong dissent in the case that stated the principals used by the experts were subject to  peer review from my reading so that it is not necessary that the actual opinion of how the guard rail was defective was not necessary to be peer reviewed.  I would expect this case to go up on cert.  As the dissent argued, there appears to be so many factual disputes that it is up to the jury to sort out. 

Employment Case of Interest

The Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Southern Health Corp. of Houston v. Carol Crausby  yesterday.  The issue dealt with whether a business can have a conspiracy to fire its own employee.   Crausby worked as an ER nurse at Trace Regional Hospital in Houston, Mississippi.  Another employee, Dr. Victor Horn, demanded that she be fired.  Crausby sued and was awarded  $80,000 from the hospital on her claim that its administrators had conspired with Dr. Horn to tortiously interfere with her employment relationship with the hospital. The hospital argued that  it cannot be held liable for interfering with its own contract because tortious interference can occur only when the contract is “between another and a third person.” The Court of Appeals agreed but did not grant relief on this issue because it was not raised in the lower court.  However, the Court reversed and rendered on the sufficiency of the evidence.  The Court found that there was no unlawful purpose in seeking to have her fired and so there could be no tortious interference. 

Medical Malpractice Case of Interest

Last Thursday, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a medical malpractice case without a full decision in Mallette v. Dye located here.  This is a medical malpractice case with a factual dispute over where the case should be filed.  Ultimately, the case was a 4-4 split.  When this happens, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.  The issue appears to be that the malpractice potentially occurred in two (2) separate counties.  The trial court had refused to transfer the defendants who were in a separate county.  This would potentially result in two (2) separate suits being necessary.  The briefs in the case are worth filing away. 

Change to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 105

Last week, per this order, Mississippi Rule of Evidence 105 was changed. Here is how it reads now. The prior version is on the link. 

MRE 105 Limited Admissibility

"If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose—but not against another party or for another purpose—the court, unless expressly waived or rebutted, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope, and contemporaneously instruct the jury accordingly, and give a written instruction if requested."

Res Judicata

The Mississippi Supreme Court applied res judicata to medical bills in the following case yesterday: In the Matter of the Dissolution of James Hanlin and Melanie Hanlin .  The parties were divorced in 2007 and certain medical bills went unpaid.  Ms. Hanlin knew the medical bills were unpaid in 2009 when she was in court but did not pursue them.  The Court found that the claim could and should have been brought then.  Therefore, the later claim was barred.  This is why it is important to have a party be sure to raise any issue they have in a current proceeding and not wait until later.   

Proposed Changes to Local Rules

The Northern District of Mississippi is looking to make several changes to the Local Rules.  Click here for the proposed changes. Comments are due by July 1. Some highlights:

• motions (not memorandum briefs) limited to 4 pages, no citations/arguments;
• pre-removal discovery deemed served as of date of case mgmt. conference (except, for some reason, for Rule 34 requests);
• parties no longer allowed to have smartphones in court.