Marshall Durbin Food Corporation v. Bill W. Baker
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02073-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 09-28-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 02-15-2005 Opinion Author: BARNES, J., Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Consideration - Effective date of agreement - Collateral estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): LEE, P.J., Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-21-2003 Appealed from: WAYNE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARSHALL DURBIN FOOD CORPORATION |
CAMILLE HENICK EVANS
ANN BOWDEN-HOLLIS
JEFFREY A. WALKER
WILLIAM K. HANCOCK |
||
| Appellee: | BILL W. BAKER | CYNTHIA HEWES SPEETJENS T. ROE FRAZER |
|
|
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: | Contract - Consideration - Effective date of agreement - Collateral estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bill Baker, former president of Marshall Durbin Food Corporation, brought suit against his former employer to enforce an agreement which would provide him with five years of monthly compensation equal to his monthly salary while employed. The chancery court held the contract to be valid and ordered Marshall Durbin Food Corporation to pay Baker in accordance with the terms of the contract. Marshall Durbin Food Corporation appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Good argues that the verdict returned by the jury was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence and clearly showed bias, passion, and prejudice. Good filed neither a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict nor a motion for a new trial with the lower court. Without such challenge, the appellate court is unable to consider this issue on appeal. Good also argues that the disclosure of whether a party has liability insurance coverage is grounds for a mistrial. Although the jury asked about insurance, the record shows that no such disclosure was made at trial. Issue 2: Admission of evidence Good argues that the court erred in denying his two motions in limine requesting that evidence as to a workers’ compensation claim he filed and injuries he received in another motor vehicle collision be excluded. Indreland can only be liable for injuries or damages to Good resulting from his negligence. Therefore, any evidence tending to show that any part of Good’s injury may have occurred as a result of some other cause was relevant. The relevance of these injuries also invalidates Good’s alleged medical privilege. Issue 3: Jury instructions Good argues that the court erred in giving or failing to give a number of jury instructions. If the instructions given adequately instruct the jury as to the applicable law, the refused instruction may not be a source of complaint. Here, the instructions, when read as a whole, fairly instructed the jury as to the applicable law. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
