McDonald v. McDonald
| Docket Number: | 1999-CT-00848-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-CT-00848-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 03-27-2003 Holding: Petition for writ of certiorari filed by Howard Clayborne McDonald, Jr., is granted. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Jurisdiction - Temporary order Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Cobb, Diaz, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : To Deny: Graves, J. Nature of the Case: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Writ of Certiorari: Granted |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-03-1999 Appealed from: Lee County Chancery Court Judge: William Griffin, Jr. Disposition: Changed custody of the minor children and found the Appellant in contempt. Case Number: 950437 |
|
| Consolidated: 1999-CT-01384-SCT Howard Clayborne McDonald, Jr. v. Rosemary Sheffield McDonald; Lee Chancery Court; LC Case #: 950437; Ruling Date: 08/03/1999; Ruling Judge: William Griffin, Jr. | ||
| Note: | Link Inactive Petition to Strike Appellee Brief is dismissed as moot. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Howard Clayborne McDonald, Jr. |
|||
| Appellee: | Rosemary Sheffield McDonald |
|
||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contempt - Jurisdiction - Temporary order |
| Summary of the Facts: | Howard McDonald, Jr. argued that the special chancellor presiding in this case erred in changing custody of his two youngest children from him to his ex-wife, and in holding him in contempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The intention of the special chancellor, as evidenced by his decision, was clearly to determine custody temporarily until he could resume the proceedings with a full hearing on the merits pertaining to permanent custody of the children and other matters that are still before the court. Therefore, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court of Appeals was correct in its assertion that “[t]he order invited further motions to address custody and support issues. . . . [and w]e find nothing to review about this explicitly temporary order entered three years ago..” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
