Concannon v. Reynolds
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00810-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00810-SCT ; 2002-CT-00810-SCT ; 2002-CT-00810-SCT ; 2002-CT-00810-SCT ; 2002-CA-00810-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2003 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Dissent Joined By : McMillin, C.J. and Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-19-2002 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE IN AMOUNT OF $2,500 ACTUAL DAMAGES, $2,500 PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND $20,758.75 IN ATTORNEY‘S FEES Case Number: 98-0053-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Milton D. Concannon, M.D. |
T. PATRICK WELCH |
||
| Appellee: | Donis Reynolds | T. MACK BRABHAM |
|
|
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 - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Dr. Milton Concannon treated Sandra Rachel for chest pains, Rachel’s sister, Donis Reynolds, wrote a letter to Concannon and to Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center complaining of Concannon’s “bedside manner.” Concannon sued for dafamation, and Reynolds counterclaimed for breach of contract. The judge issued a directed verdict against Concannon on his defamation claim. The jury returned a verdict for Reynolds for breach of contract and awarded her $2,500 actual damages and $2,500 punitive damages. The court awarded Reynolds attorney fees in the amount of $20,758.75. Concannon appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Concannon argues that the amount of attorney’s fees is not supported by sufficient evidence. His argument is moot. After the judge made his ruling, the correct step would have been to give the trial court a chance to correct its alleged mistake by moving for an amended finding under M.R.C.P. 52, a new trial under M.R.C.P. 59, or relief from the judgment under M.R.C.P. 60. Because the issue was appealed directly, it is procedurally barred from consideration. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
