Littleton v. McAdams
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01197-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 03-22-2011 | |
* 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). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-28-2011 Opinion Author: Dickinson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of employment - City attorney - Section 25-1-7 - Injunctive relief - M.R.C.P. 65(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2009 Appealed from: Leflore County Chancery Court Judge: Joseph C. Webster Disposition: The trial court granted the mayor's petition for injunctive and declaratory relief, and the former city attorney appeals. Case Number: G09-0110 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | James K. Littleton |
WILLIE JAMES PERKINS, SR., DESHANDRA LALAYNE ROSS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Carolyn McAdams | A. LEE ABRAHAM, JR., PRESTON DAVIS RIDEOUT, JR. | ||
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: | Termination of employment - City attorney - Section 25-1-7 - Injunctive relief - M.R.C.P. 65(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Littleton’s employment as city attorney was terminated by Greenwood’s newly elected mayor, Carolyn McAdams. Littleton announced to the Greenwood City Council that he was statutorily authorized to continue to serve as a holdover appointee until the mayor nominated -- and the council approved -- a replacement. After the council – by a five-two vote – rejected Mayor McAdams’s nomination of the law firm Abraham and Rideout to be Greenwood’s new city attorney, Mayor McAdams filed suit against Littleton and five city council members, seeking a judicial declaration that McAdams lawfully terminated Littleton as city attorney; Littleton no longer held the office of Greenwood City Attorney; the office of city attorney was vacant; the city council had no authority to hire Littleton to act as city attorney; the city council had no authority to hire Littleton to represent or advise the city council or members acting in their official capacities; and the city council had no authority to hire Littleton to represent or advise the council under the guise of hiring him as a clerk for the council. Mayor McAdams also asked the court to enjoin Littleton from purporting to act as Greenwood’s city attorney in any circumstances, including attending city council meetings. The chancellor – finding that McAdams lawfully had terminated Littleton, and that he had no legal authority to hold over – enjoined Littleton from continuing to serve as Greenwood’s city attorney. The city council later approved McAdams’s nomination of Donnie Brock, III, who currently serves as Greenwood’s city attorney. Littleton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Littleton argues that Mayor McAdams did not have lawful authority to terminate him. He argues that section 25-1-7 gave him the right to hold over until the new city attorney was appointed and approved. Under its plain language, the statute applies only to positions that – from some other source – have been granted the power to hold over. Littleton cites no authority or other source for his assertion that, when his term ended, he had the right to hold over. A request for injunctive relief under M.R.C.P. 65(a) requires findings that there exists a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits; the injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm; the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction might do to the defendants; and granting a preliminary injunction is consistent with the public interest. Mayor McAdams demonstrated a substantial likelihood that she would prevail on the merits. The law is clear that the mayor has the sole power to make appointments to the city attorney’s office. Also, the injunction was necessary to prevent potential irreparable harm that would result from actions taken by an individual purporting to act as city attorney in the absence of the authority to do so. Finally, any harm to Littleton was minimal, when compared to the potential harm to the city and its citizens. Littleton acknowledged that his term had ended. The injunction served the public interest because it prevented Littleton from illegally taking actions on the city’s behalf. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
