Trump Swings His Wrecking Ball at Social Security

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

Neil H. Buchanan—UF law professor and economist—dispels some common misunderstandings about the future of Social Security but explains why President Trump’s recent comments are cause for concern. Buchanan explains why, contrary to claims by reporters and politicians, Social Security is not at the brink of insolvency, but points out that if Trump were to permanently eliminate payroll taxes, that would doom the program on which tens of millions of retirees depend.

Read More

Delta Electric Power Assn. v. Campbell

Citation: 2019-CA-00206-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Leslie D. King

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Utilities Law

Members of Delta Electric Power Association filed a lawsuit against the cooperative seeking the return of excess revenue and receipts. Delta moved to compel arbitration. The trial court found that the arbitration clause contained in the bylaws was procedurally unconscionable and denied Delta’s motion to compel. After Delta appealed the trial court’s decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court decided Virgil v. Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Association, 296 So. 3d 53 (Miss. 2020), in which it found an arbitration agreement contained in a cooperative’s bylaws to be valid and enforceable. Because the Supreme Court determined the issues in this case were almost identical to the issues decided in Virgil, precedent required it Court to reverse the trial court’s decision denying Delta’s motion to compel arbitration.

Waste Management of Mississippi Inc. v. Jackson Ramelli Waste LLC

Citation: 2018-CT-00164-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Griffis

Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

The issue this case presented for the Mississippi Supreme Court was whether Jackson Ramelli Waste LLC was entitled to additional compensation “over and above [the] amounts agreed upon by the parties, invoiced by [Jackson Ramelli], and accepted as payment by [Jackson Ramelli], in the absence of a contract, but under a quantum meruit theory[.]” From October 2009 to September 2015, Waste Management contracted with the City of Jackson to collect solid waste from all residential units and light commercial entities in the city. The contract required Waste Management to subcontract 35.802 percent of the work to minority-owned or women-owned businesses and to adhere to the requirements of the City’s equal business opportunity (EBO) plan. Waste Management entered a subcontract with Jackson Ramelli and Metro Waste Disposal to perform certain portions of the waste-collection services and to fulfill this obligation. Jackson Ramelli’s payment rate would be adjusted annually in accordance with any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Both parties were prohibited from the assignment of the subcontract without the other party’s consent. Unbeknownst to Waste Management, after entering into the subcontract with Waste Management, Jackson Ramelli subcontracted all of its work to RKC LLC, a Louisiana company that was neither a minority- nor women-owned company. It is undisputed that RKC performed all of the residential waste-collection services that Waste Management hired Jackson Ramelli to perform. The subcontract between Waste Management and Jackson Ramelli expired at the end of September 2010; the parties continued services on a month-to-month basis. In January 2012, Jackson Ramelli purchased the right to assume Metro Waste’s routes related to the contract. As a result, Jackson Ramelli increased the amount it invoiced Waste Management to reflect the additional houses it acquired through its acquisition of Metro Waste’s routes. While Jackson Ramelli submitted monthly invoices to Waste Management for services rendered, it did not invoice Waste Management for any CPI adjustments or for any further houses serviced. But during this time, Jackson Ramelli raised the possibility of additional compensation to reflect (1) the changes in the CPI and (2) the increase in the number of houses Jackson Ramelli claimed to be servicing. Jackson Ramelli filed a complaint against Waste Management in July 2015 claiming Waste Management’s: (1) nonpayment of CPI increases between 2012 and 2015; (2) nonpayment of waste-collection services for additional houses between 2012 and 2015; and (3) nonpayment of work performed in March 2015. Because the record established that the additional work claimed by Jackson Ramelli was contemplated by its contract and because Jackson Ramelli did not have a reasonable expectation of additional compensation, the Supreme Court reversed its quantum meruit claim, and final judgment was entered in favor of Waste Management.

Seals v. Pearl River Resort & Casino

Citation: 2019-CT-00012-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

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

The Mississippi Supreme Court accepted this case on certiorari review from the Court of Appeals. Shaun Seals worked for the Pearl River Resort; he alleged he was terminated for reasons relating to a work-related injury. Donna Brolick, Pearl River Resort’s director of employment compliance, was called as a witness at the hearing before an administrative judge (AJ). Brolick testified that she was previously vice president of human resources at Pearl River Resort at the time Seals’s position was phased out and he was let go in January of 2013. Brolick further testified that in 2012 the resort changed its management. Multiple upper-level positions were eliminated or consolidated. Seals’s position as director of transportation was one of several positions that were eliminated. The Workers' Compensation Commission reversed the AJ’s order. The Commission found that Seals had reached maximum medical improvement on November 13, 2015, but failed to prove any permanent disability or loss of wage-earning capacity for two reasons. The Commission found that Seals was let go for unrelated economic reasons, noting his receipt of severance pay and other benefits as well as the testimony and evidence adduced by the Resort. Seals appealed the Commission's decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court held the Commission was correct in its assessment of the date of maximum medical improvement but that the Commission erred by finding Seals failed to prove any loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision of the Commission and directed the Commission to calculate Seals’s loss of wage-earning capacity and to award corresponding compensation. The Resort petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court adopted "the well-reasoned analysis of the opinion concerning maximum medical improvement," but was "constrained to reverse the Court of Appeals’ majority regarding loss of wage-earning capacity. Sufficient evidence supported the Commission’s decision that Seals had not suffered loss of wage-earning capacity." The Commission's decision was reinstated in toto.

Adara Networks, Inc. v. Langston

Citation: 2018-IA-01686-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Michael K. Randolph

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Adara Networks Inc. (Networks Inc.) appeals the denial of a Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. At the time the complaint was filed, Networks Inc. was incorporated in Florida with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Shane Langston was a member of the Mississippi Bar since 1984 and until 2016, was a resident of Mississippi. At the time of filing, he was a resident of Texas. Years before Langston moved to Texas, Langston purchased one million shares of preferred stock in Networks Inc. for $500,000. This purchase was made at the urging of his then-Madison County, Mississippi, neighbor, Ken Primos. Unknown to Langston, Primos was a paid shill for Networks Inc., acting to entice Langston and other Mississippians to invest in Networks Inc. In an affidavit filed in this proceeding, Primos swore that since at least 2002 he was paid monthly by Networks Inc. to solicit and influence investors for Networks Inc. including residents of Mississippi. Networks Inc. held one shareholder meeting over the twenty-year period that Langston was a shareholder. That shareholder meeting was held in Jackson, Mississippi, with roughly one hundred Mississippi shareholders in attendance. Langston sought multiple times to examine various corporate documents. Each time, Primos was dispatched by Networks Inc. to discourage Langston. Primos told Langston to withdraw his requests because a merger or buyout was imminent and disclosures would adversely impact Networks Inc. Networks Inc. countered the shareholders request by producing only selected documents. However, before allowing the investors to review any documents, Networks Inc. required execution of a confidentiality agreement. That agreement contained a clause requiring that any dispute arising under that agreement would be governed and interpreted by the laws of Mississippi and, further, that any disputes that arose were subject to the jurisdiction of Mississippi courts. Langston alleged that the selective production failed to encompass the documents requested and required by either Florida or Mississippi law. Langston filed a complaint for accounting; Networks Inc. responded with a Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Networks Inc. also claimed that it had not subjected itself to the benefits and protections of Mississippi law, despite evidence to the contrary in the confidentiality agreement. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined the Mississippi Chancery Court properly denied Networks Inc.’s motion. "The chancery court can assert personal jurisdiction over Networks Inc. under either the doing-business prong of our long-arm statute or the tort prong. Langston pled sufficient facts to establish Networks Inc. did or does business in Mississippi and to plead the tort of breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court."

Ware v. Mississippi

Citation: 2019-KA-00866-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Griffis

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Dontorius Ware was indicted, charged and convicted for the murder of Roy Lee Washington. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court determined sufficient evidence supported the verdict, because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and because Ware did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, it affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Kuhn v. High

Citation: 2018-CA-01760-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: James W. Kitchens

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

In this case's second time before the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Court held in High v. Kuhn, 191 So. 3d 113 (Miss. 2016) (High I), that article 4, section 110, of the Mississippi Constitution forbade the condemnation of a private road across the property of Cheryl High for the benefit of Todd and Angela Kuhn. After the Court’s mandate, High moved the Harrison County Special Court of Eminent Domain for attorney fees pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 11-27-37 (Rev. 2019). The special court found that Section 11-27-37 did not apply. High appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the special court to consider the merits of the motion for attorney fees and the reasonableness of the amount of fees requested. On remand, High filed an amended motion requesting attorney fees for a frivolous filing under the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act (LAA). After a hearing, the special court awarded attorney fees to High as a sanction for the Kuhns’ frivolous filing. The special court found that the $29,049.60 requested by High was reasonable and assessed that amount jointly and severally against the Kuhns and their attorney, Virgil Gillespie. The special court denied the Kuhns’ motion to reconsider and amended the judgment to add $1,000 in attorney fees that High had incurred in defending the motion for reconsideration. The Kuhns and Gillespie appealed, arguing that the special court erred by: (1) adopting High’s findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) awarding a judgment to one of High’s attorneys who was not a party to the lawsuit; (3) imposing a sanction for a frivolous filing; (4) awarding interest; and (5) allowing attorney fees beyond those permitted by Section 11- 27-37. The Supreme Court concluded the special court of eminent domain did not abuse its discretion by imposing the sanctions nor did it err in its application of the law. The Court reversed in part only to correct a scrivener’s error in the amended judgment.

Ray v. Ray

Citation: 2019-CA-01420-SCT

Opinion Date: September 3, 2020

Judge: Beam

Areas of Law: Family Law

George Ray, Sr., and Johnnita Ray were divorced on the ground of irreconcilable differences, and the chancery court decided issues of property settlement. George appealed, arguing that the chancellor erred by not crediting him for supporting Johnnita’s children, by finding him solely responsible for their joint debt, and by including his military-retirement income into the alimony determination. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s judgment.