Clayton v. Hartsog
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01694-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01694-SCT ; 2006-CA-01694-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-04-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Reopening time for appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(h) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-30-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: TRIAL COURT DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REOPEN TIME FOR APPEAL. Case Number: 251-06-69CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | J. W. CLAYTON, JR. |
GARY DALE THRASH,
JOHN NEWTON SATCHER |
||
| Appellee: | JEFFREY HARTSOG | ROBERT J. ARNOLD |
|
|
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: | Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Reopening time for appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(h) |
| Summary of the Facts: | J.W. Clayton, Jr. filed suit against Dr. Jeffrey Hartsog in county court claiming slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. That suit was dismissed on Hartsog’s motion for summary judgment and Clayton was sanctioned $500 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Clayton appealed to circuit court which affirmed the ruling of the county court on both summary judgment and sanctions. Due to a clerical error, Clayton did not receive notice of the circuit court judgment until after the period for timely appeal to the supreme court had lapsed. Clayton then filed a motion under M.R.A.P. 4(h) to reopen time for appeal. The circuit court denied the motion, and Clayton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Clayton argues that the court was in error when it denied his motion to reopen time for appeal under M.R.A.P. 4(h), because his failure to timely appeal was due to an error in the circuit court clerk’s computer system. This fact is not contested by Hartsog, and is supported by a letter from the circuit clerk. Clayton’s attorney acted quickly and efficiently after receiving notice of the judgment through a letter from opposing counsel, and filed his Rule 4(h) motion within seven days of receiving notice of the judgment. The comments to Rule 4(h) make clear, however, that the trial court retains some discretion to refuse to reopen the time for appeal even when the requirements of Rule 4(h) are met. Given the facts of this case, especially the imposition of sanctions for filing a frivolous suit, the circuit court did not abuse the discretion granted to it by Rule 4(h) when it denied Clayton’s motion to reopen time for appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
