3M Company v. Hinton
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-02459-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-17-2005 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Incomplete pleadings - M.R.C.P. 8, 9, 10, and 11 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., and Dickinson, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-25-2003 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: Entered a case management order. Case Number: 2002-6-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | 3M Company |
SCOTT WILLIAM BATES
WALKER W. (BILL) JONES, III
BARRY W. FORD
BARRY CLAYTON CAMPBELL |
||
| Appellee: | Curtis Lee Hinton | JOHN M. MONTGOMERY WILLIAM H. LISTON DUDLEY G. JORDAN ZOLLIE C. STEAKLEY TODD COKER |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Incomplete pleadings - M.R.C.P. 8, 9, 10, and 11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | One hundred and fifteen plaintiffs sued 77 defendants for alleged asbestos-related injuries in the Jones County Circuit Court. 3M, on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint provided no details of the claims made against the various defendants, moved for entry of a Case Management Order which would have required each plaintiff to provide initial, basic discovery and would also have provided the court with a basis to determine severance or joinder, venue and other necessary preliminary issues. The plaintiffs proposed their own Case Management Order under which the plaintiffs would have unilaterally designated a trial group of up to twelve plaintiffs, whose claims would then be tried together. The court entered the plaintiffs’ proposed Order, essentially without change. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The case of Harold’s Auto Parts, Inc. Mangialardi, 889 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 2004) controls the disposition of all issues raised in the present case. The plaintiffs submitted pleadings which did not, at the very least, include the name or names of the defendants against whom each plaintiff alleged a claim, the time and location of exposure, and the medical condition caused by such exposure. This is a clear failure to comply with M.R.C.P. 8, 9, 10, and 11. The trial court is directed to dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint of each plaintiff who fails, within forty-five days of the Supreme Court’s mandate, to provide the defendants and the trial court with sufficient information for such determination of joinder, severance, venue and transfer if warranted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
