Shirley Cuffee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00621-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00621-COA2006-CT-00621-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-16-2007 | |
* 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 Link Opinion Date: 08-28-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Perjured testimony - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - M.R.C.P. 59(b) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2006 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Kosta N. Vlahos Disposition: DENIED RULE 60(b) MOTION Case Number: A2401-2002-137 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHIRLEY CUFFEE |
ALBEN NORRIS HOPKINS
MARIANO JAVIER BARVIÈ |
||
| Appellee: | WAL-MART STORES, INC. | RAYMOND L. BROWN STEVEN BENJAMIN DICK |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Perjured testimony - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - M.R.C.P. 59(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shirley Cuffee filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries she claims to have suffered while at a Wal-Mart store. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Wal-Mart. Cuffee filed a motion pursuant to M.R.C.P. 60(b), alleging that a witness for Wal-Mart gave perjured testimony at trial after being instructed by Wal-Mart’s attorney to do so. The court denied the motion. Cuffee appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Cuffee argues that the trial judge erred in denying her Rule 60(b) motion, because the witness provided perjurious testimony at trial which warrants relief from the jury’s verdict. Rule 60(b)(1) provides no relief to Cuffee, as the witness, an employee of Wal-Mart’s, is not an adverse party to this litigation, nor sufficiently high in rank so as to equate his actions with the actions of Wal-Mart. The witness did not admit to Cuffee’s attorney that he provided false testimony until approximately two months after the trial. Thus, Cuffee’s attorney had no way of knowing that the witness had provided false testimony in time to move for a new trial pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59(b). The witness’s posttrial admission does not constitute newly discovered evidence under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) to warrant the granting of a new trial, because it is merely impeaching. Cuffee did not make an argument under Rule 60(b)(6). However, if she had done so, it would not have been persuasive. While the witness provided false testimony, he is the only witness who did so, and there is no evidence to suggest that he deliberately schemed to defraud the court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
