Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., et al. v. Winters, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01793-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-15-2004 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Reasonableness of expenses Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Easley, Carlson, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-17-2002 Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: Assessed approximately $5,900.00 in fees and expenses against ICR. Case Number: 96-0072 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Illinois Central Railroad Company, Herbert Bennett and J. R. Wright |
GLENN F. BECKHAM
CHRISTOPHER W. WINTER
EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Bertha Lee Winters; Demetrius Hawkins; Lucious Robinson, Individually, and as Father and Next Friend of Shuntai Robinson, Sherita Robinson and Juanita Robinson, Minors; Kevin Mabry; Tibithal O. Selders; Alvin P. Haymer; Dennis Haymer; Ira Haymer; Miller Haymer; Annette Haymer Fort; Larry Haymer; and Stephanie Haymer Perkins | PAT M. BARRETT DEREK ARTHUR WYATT HIAWATHA NORTHINGTON |
|
|
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: | Contempt - Reasonableness of expenses |
| Summary of the Facts: | In the first appeal of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt against Illinois Central Railroad Co., but found the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses of over $47,000 excessive, and remanded to the trial court to reassess the amount. On remand, the court assessed approximately $5,900 in fees and expenses against ICR. ICR appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | ICR argues that the heirs had notice that it would not be able to attend the depositions and that the heirs purposefully incurred expenses when they traveled to Chicago knowing that ICR would not be there. As found in the first appeal, ICR did not make a good faith effort to comply with the trial court's discovery order. The trial court had previously denied ICR's motion for a protective order and directed that the depositions proceed as scheduled. The heirs acted reasonably in reliance on that order while ICR chose not to comply. The expenses awarded by the trial court on remand were reasonable and well documented. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
