Knox, et al. v. Mahalitc


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01431-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-06-2011
Opinion Author: Russell, J.
Holding: Dismissed.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - Interlocutory appeal - M.R.A.P. 5
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2010
Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: GRANTED MOTION TO DISMISS
Case Number: CV-2008-0055-CI
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Freddie L. Knox, Kenyatta Knox, Jeremy Knox, Kishun Knox, Mary L. Knox, Lakidra Ramone Knox, Tyangela Knox, Yolanda Knox, Deliyah Watson, Walter Watson, Natasha Knox, Fredrick Knox and Markeya Knox




 OBY THOMAS ROGERS EDDIE JACOB ABDEEN



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: George Mahalitc BRADLEY FAREL HATHAWAY  
    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 - Jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - Interlocutory appeal - M.R.A.P. 5
    Summary of the Facts: Yolanda Knox’s vehicle collided with the tractor-trailer truck driven by David McCoy. Initially, the Knoxes filed a complaint against McCoy, Russell Mahalitc d/b/a Magnolia Plantation, and twenty-four fictitious defendants. Magnolia was sued as McCoy’s employer and as the owner of the truck. Magnolia filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that McCoy had worked for GM Farms and that Magnolia had no duty to equip the truck properly. The circuit court agreed and granted Magnolia’s summary-judgment motion. The Knoxes appealed. While the Knoxes’ first appeal was pending, the Knoxes moved for leave to file an amended complaint against GM Farms, which the circuit court eventually granted over McCoy’s objection. In their amended complaint, the Knoxes asserted claims against McCoy, Magnolia, GM Farms, and twenty-seven fictitious defendants. GM Farms later filed a motion to dismiss the Knoxes’ claims. The trial court granted GM Farms’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Knoxes’ amended complaint with prejudice. The Knoxes appealed a second time.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: GM Farms argues that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. The comment to M.R.C.P. 54 explains that absent a certification under Rule 54(b), any order in a multiple party or multiple claim action, even if it appears to adjudicate a separable portion of the controversy, is interlocutory. Therefore, if a court decides to enter a final and appealable judgment, it must do so in a definite, unmistakable manner. The circuit court’s order from which the Knoxes appealed only dismissed GM Farms and did not mention the other defendants. Because the order of dismissal neither explicitly dismissed all of the defendants in the action nor was certified as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), the appeal is not properly before the Court. The order dismissing GM Farms is interlocutory and not appealable without the Supreme Court’s permission as provided by M.R.A.P. 5.


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