Joe, Joey, Joe-Baby, Sexist: Where’s Your Imposter Syndrome?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman responds to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden for using the academic title she earned. Professor Grossman dissects the op-ed, penned by a retired lecturer at Northwestern University, and explains the deep and pervasive sexism behind it.

Read More

Estate of Gorman v. Mississippi Gaming Commission

Citation: 2019-CA-01240-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

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

Robert Sharp shot and killed John Gorman during a firearm-training exercise ("a multitude of lapses in safety protocols"). Sharp and Gorman were employees of the Mississippi Gaming Commission and were acting in the course and scope of their employment. The Commission Shooting Review Board concluded that the incident “was an accidental discharge of an agency weapon,” it also concluded that the “failure to follow the prescribed policies, procedures and lesson plans” was the most significant contributing factor. After the incident, Gorman’s heirs began receiving automatic workers’ compensation payments. Each heir brought independent actions against the Commission that were later consolidated. Once consolidated, the Commission filed a joint motion for summary judgment in August 2017, stating the exclusivity of Mississippi Workers’ Compensation law barred further remedy. Gorman’s heirs opposed the motion by way of a pleading, memorandum, and a supplement with affidavits and admissions purportedly deemed admitted. The circuit court later granted summary judgment for the Commission. On appeal, the heirs argued: (1) the circuit court erred in determining the Workers' Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy to recover for the wrongful death of John Gorman; and (2) the circuit court erred in determining complete immunity applied regarding the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Finding no triable issues of material fact in the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court.

Venture, Inc. d/b/a Save-A-Lot v. Harris

Citation: 2019-IA-01498-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Chamberlin

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

Mattie Harris filed a premises-liability action against Venture, Inc., d/b/a/ Save-A-Lot after Harris allegedly tripped over the base of a temporary iron display rack while shopping at a Save-A-Lot grocery store. Harris claimed that Venture created a dangerous condition on the premises by placing a temporary iron display rack on the edge of a shopping aisle so that the base and the legs of the display rack protruded into the aisle and obstructed the walking clearance of customers. Harris claimed that Venture negligently maintained the premises by creating a dangerous condition on the premises and failed to warn invitees of the condition. The dangerous condition, Harris claimed, was the proximate cause of her fall and the resulting injuries. Both Harris and Venture moved for summary judgment, and Venture filed a motion to stay proceedings for the parties to complete discovery. The trial court granted in part Harris' motion on the issue of liability, and denied Venture's two motions. Aggrieved, Venture sought interlocutory appeal and argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying its Rule 56(f) motion and by granting Harris’s motion for summary judgment. Venture further asserted that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because no unreasonably dangerous condition existed on the premises. Because this case was fact intensive and the two parties submitted conflicting evidence as to whether the rack constituted a dangerous condition, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that summary judgment in favor of either party was inappropriate and that the question of whether the rack constituted a dangerous condition should have been resolved by a trier of fact in a trial on the merits. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Havard v. Mississippi

Citation: 2018-CA-01709-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jeffrey Keith Havard was convicted by jury and sentenced to death for capital murder. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Havard’s third petition for post-conviction relief and allowed him to proceed in the trial court based on his claim that newly discovered evidence pertaining to shaken-baby syndrome required a new trial and vacating his death sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge determined that Havard failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that new evidence existed that would have caused a different result as to his guilt or innocence. But the trial judge did vacate Havard’s death sentence and resentenced him to life without parole. Havard appealed the trial judge’s denial of a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.

Reeves v. Gunn

Citation: 2020-CA-01107-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Speaker of the Mississippi House or Representatives and the Speaker Pro Tempore alleged the Governor "ignored the dictates of [the Mississippi] Constitution, and exceeded his authority to strike parts of House Bill 1782 to partially veto appropriation bills. The Governor denies his acts were unconstitutional. Having reviewed the record of the chancery court proceeding, pertinent sections of the Mississippi Constitution, and case law addressing partial vetoes, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the Governor did not exceed the power of his office. "His partial veto comports with section 73 of our Constitution and therefore carried with it the authority endowed that office by the people of Mississippi." Accordingly, the judgment of the chancery court holding otherwise was reversed.

McQuirter v. Archie

Citation: 2019-EC-01673-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Election Law

Following a narrow loss to David Archie in the Hinds County Mississippi Board of Supervisors for District 2 Primary Election, Darrell McQuirter filed a Petition to Contest Qualifications of Archie as nominee for supervisor, claiming that Archie was not a resident of District 2 at the time of the primary election. The Hinds County circuit court found in favor of Archie. Specifically, the trial court found Archie established he domicile within Hinds County District 2. The record did not indicate that the trial judge acted alone. But the trial judge’s final order did not expressly mention elections commissioners’ concurrences, and there was no evidence of any dissent. McQuirter argued on appeal: (1) the trial judge erred by failing to allow the election commissioners to either concur or dissent on either the record or in the trial judge’s order; and (2) the trial court erred by finding that Archie qualified as a resident of the district. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded McQuirter bore the burden of supplying the Court with evidence through the record that established his claim of error, but failed to do so. If the requisite number of election commissioners attend and none dissent, per the applicable statute, the “facts shall not be subject to appellate review.” A majority of the Supreme Court found the statute did not require concurrences of commissioner be placed in the record: "Together, Sections 23-15-931 and -933 bar appellate review of the factual findings without evidence of any commissioner’s dissent or lack of attendance, not concurrence. Here, the commissioners were in attendance, and none dissented." If actual dissents existed, the Court held McQuirter had a duty to supply the Court with a record that evidenced a dissent or the inability to provide record of a dissent; the trial judge’s lack of indicating the commissioners’ concurrence does not suggest that one or more had dissented. The Court thus determined review of Archie's residence was precluded. Judgement of the trial court was affirmed.

Mississippi Sand Solutions, LLC v. Otis, et al.

Citation: 2019-CA-01103-SCT

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Mississippi Sand Solutions (Solutions) appealed a judgment by the Warren County Special Court of Eminent Domain denying its petition to establish a private right-of-way across lands owned by the defendants (the Fishers). Because the Mississippi Supreme Court fount the special court did not err by applying collateral estoppel to claims relating to access to Solutions’ property, judgment was affirmed. "When a party has been given voluntary access to its property over the land of another and that party continues to have access for the purposes of ingress and egress, that party cannot assert a claim under Mississippi Code Section 65-7-201 for a private road through the land of their obliging neighbor. Even without applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Solutions, by its own arguments and testimony of its own witnesses, demonstrated it could not make a prima facie case under this statute."