Whitley v. City of Pearl


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00874-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00874-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-22-2008
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Carrying out judgment - Due process - Recusal of judge - URCCC 1.15 - M.R.A.P. 48B - Continuation of proceedings
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): LEE, P.J.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-04-2007
Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY COUNTY COURT
Judge: Kent McDaniel
Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS
Case Number: 2006-465
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JOHN T. WHITLEY, SR.




 W.O. DILLARD, HARRY J. ROSENTHAL



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: CITY OF PEARL, MISSISSIPPI; HAYLES TOWING & RECOVERY; R & L TOWING; CAPITOL BODY SHOP; HALLS TOWING SERVICE, INC.; WARD’S WRECKER SERVICE; WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; PEARL AUTOMOTIVE & TOWING; AND JOHN DOES DURWOOD E. MCGUFFEE, JAMES P. STREETMAN, PAUL B. HENDERSON, JUDSON M. LEE, J. PEYTON RANDOLPH, J. SCOTT ROGERS  
    Appellee #2:  
    Appellee #3:  
  • Appellee #3 Brief
    		•
    Appellee #4:  
  • Appellee #4 Brief
    		•
    Appellee #5:  
  • Appellee #5 Brief
    • 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: Carrying out judgment - Due process - Recusal of judge - URCCC 1.15 - M.R.A.P. 48B - Continuation of proceedings
    Summary of the Facts: John Whitley Sr. filed suit against the City of Pearl, Waste Management, Inc., and a number of towing companies, alleging that the defendants acted improperly in carrying out a final judgment of the Rankin County County Court. The court dismissed the towing companies from the suit, and Whitley appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Due process Whitley argues that he was denied due process because the court did not give him an opportunity to be heard before dismissing his case. Minimum due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The record shows that Whitley had notice. Furthermore, a hearing was held that Whitley attended and at which he presented argument. Issue 2: Recusal Whitley argues that the judge erred when he refused to recuse. Whitley’s motion was not filed with an affidavit as required by URCCC 1.15. In addition, his motion was not timely filed. Whitley also failed to comply with M.R.A.P. 48B. Issue 3: Continuation of proceedings Whitley argues that the court erred in failing to stay its proceedings after Whitley indicated that he intended to appeal the recusal decision. The judge was correct in finding that Rule 48B provides an aggrieved party the right to seek review in the supreme court of the judge’s decision without first obtaining permission. Whitley failed to properly seek review in the supreme court. Since Whitley failed to properly seek review of the decision under Rule 48B, the court was entitled to proceed with the other motions before it.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court