Hinds County, et al. v. Perkins
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00929-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 05-10-2011 | |
* 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: 06-30-2011 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Dismissed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Interlocutory order - Denial of immunity at summary judgment stage - M.R.A.P. 5 - M.R.A.P. 4 - Collateral order doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-20-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: The trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment based on its claim of sovereign immunity. Case Number: 251-06-671-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Hinds County, Mississippi and Sheriff Malcolm McMillin, in his Official Capacity |
MICHELLE TOLLE HIGH
J. LAWSON HESTER |
||
| Appellee: | Vern Perkins, Individually, and as Representative of the Heirs at Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Saun Keith Perkins-Wilford, Deceased | JAMES LEE KELLY |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Interlocutory order - Denial of immunity at summary judgment stage - M.R.A.P. 5 - M.R.A.P. 4 - Collateral order doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | A prisoner escaped from the custody of the Hinds County sheriff, and, while evading capture, the escapee struck a pedestrian with a stolen vehicle. The pedestrian died, and a wrongful death suit was filed against the County. The County filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of sovereign immunity. The court denied the motion, and the County appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The parties do not dispute that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order or that the only means of seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order is by filing a petition with the Court under M.R.A.P. 5. Hinds County did not file a petition for interlocutory appeal within 21 days of the circuit court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. Instead, the County filed a notice of appeal pursuant to M.R.A.P. 4, which governs appeals as of right. The County argues that the Court should adopt the federal approach, which allows appeals as of right from orders denying qualified or absolute immunity to the extent they are based on questions of law. The courts of appeal may entertain interlocutory review of district court decisions in limited circumstances, that is, when a collateral order is tantamount to a “final decision.” In determining whether a collateral order amounts to a final decision which qualifies for immediate appeal, the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this “collateral order doctrine” to hold that federal courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review denials of immunity with respect to public officials, sued in their individual capacities under federal law, as long as that determination turns on a matter of law. In Mississippi, the Supreme Court has never recognized that governmental immunity from suit establishes a right directly to appeal a pretrial ruling denying immunity. Instead, denials of immunity at the summary judgment stage are reviewed via the interlocutory appeal process. The only time an appeal of right is allowed from an otherwise interlocutory order is in the case of an appeal from an order either denying or granting arbitration. Of course, when a commercial transaction involving interstate commerce includes an agreement to arbitrate disputes, federal law controls the enforcement of the arbitration agreement, which includes the right to appeal. In the present case, state law governs the right to appeal. Moreover, unlike denials of sovereign immunity, a denial of arbitration does not first require a determination of whether the issue turns on a question of law before the right to appeal arises. There is no compelling reason to abandon current practice regarding interlocutory review of pretrial denials of sovereign immunity. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
