Stay Connected

  • Subscribe to this blog by Email

Topics

5th Circuit Court of Appeals

A&O Life Funds Litigation

Alienation of Affection Lawsuits

Appellate Decisions From Jury Verdicts

Attorney Mental Health

Book Reviews

Eaton v. Frisby

General

Gulf Oil Spill Litigation

Hinds County Circuit Court

Improving the Jury System

Law School

Legal Technology

Madison Timber Ponzi Scheme

Mississippi Court of Appeals

Mississippi Supreme Court

National Politics

PERS Crisis

Politics in Mississippi

Tort Reform

U.S. District Courts in Mississippi

U.S. Supreme Court

Uninsured Mississippi Nursing Homes

Verdicts in Mississippi

Archives

Recent Posts

Last Post

Two Tips and an Announcement

What About Web Based Advertising?

Multi-millions Spent on Attorney Advertising in Mississippi

Why Don’t All State Courts Have Electronic Filing?

Links

MC Law Judicial Data Project

Philip Thomas Law Firm

State of Mississippi Judiciary

The Mississippi Bar Association

Blogs

Chancery Judge Larry Primeaux’s Blog

Jackson Jambalaya

Jane’s Law Blog

MissAppeal

Y’all Politics

June 2, 2010

Miss. S. Court Rules that Statute of Limitations Begins to Run on Date of Discovery of Injury, Regardless of When Plaintiff Discovered its Cause

On Thursday in a 7–2 decision the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the Grenada County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in Angle v. Koppers, Inc. Here is the Court’s opinion. Justice Lamar wrote the Court’s opinion joined by Chief Justice Waller and Justices Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph, Chandler and Pierce.

The case was a toxic tort case where plaintiff claimed to suffer injuries as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. The most recent of plaintiff’s claimed injuries occurred in 2001. Plaintiff filed suit in 2005.

Plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations began to run when she discovered that her medical problems were the result of exposure to toxic chemicals. Defendants argued that the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was diagnosed with her illnesses. The Court agreed with the defendants.

The Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of this provision in Mississippi’s general statute of limitations, Miss. Code Ann. 15–1–49:

(2) In actions for which no other period of limitations is prescribed and which involve latent injury or disease, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury.

The Court noted that the statute does not state discovery of the injury and its cause. The Court also pointed out that medical malpractice cases are governed by a different statute and discovery rule.

Justice Kitchens dissented and was joined by Justice Graves. The dissent argued that the statute cannot begin to run until a plaintiff is aware of all four elements of a negligence claim, including causation. Therefore, the dissent argued that the statute did not begin to run until the plaintiff discovered that her illnesses were caused by the exposure to the toxic chemicals.

Chris Shapely and a bunch of other lawyers represented defendants. Elizabeth Carlyle and and bunch of other lawyers represented the plaintiff.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Miss. S. Court Rules that Statute of Limitations Begins to Run on Date of Discovery of Injury, Regardless of When Plaintiff Discovered its Cause

On Thursday in a 7–2 decision the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the Grenada County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in Angle v. Koppers, Inc. Here is the Court’s opinion. Justice Lamar wrote the Court’s opinion joined by Chief Justice Waller and Justices Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph, Chandler and Pierce.

The case was a toxic tort case where plaintiff claimed to suffer injuries as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. The most recent of plaintiff’s claimed injuries occurred in 2001. Plaintiff filed suit in 2005.

Plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations began to run when she discovered that her medical problems were the result of exposure to toxic chemicals. Defendants argued that the statute of limitations began to run when plaintiff was diagnosed with her illnesses. The Court agreed with the defendants.

The Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of this provision in Mississippi’s general statute of limitations, Miss. Code Ann. 15–1–49:

(2) In actions for which no other period of limitations is prescribed and which involve latent injury or disease, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury.

The Court noted that the statute does not state discovery of the injury and its cause. The Court also pointed out that medical malpractice cases are governed by a different statute and discovery rule.

Justice Kitchens dissented and was joined by Justice Graves. The dissent argued that the statute cannot begin to run until a plaintiff is aware of all four elements of a negligence claim, including causation. Therefore, the dissent argued that the statute did not begin to run until the plaintiff discovered that her illnesses were caused by the exposure to the toxic chemicals.

Chris Shapely and a bunch of other lawyers represented defendants. Elizabeth Carlyle and and bunch of other lawyers represented the plaintiff.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

After Friday’s Bizarre Fifth Circuit Non-decision, Gulf Oil Spill MDL Should Not be Located in 5th Circuit

On Friday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did about the most bizarre thing that I can recall an appellate court ever doing in the Comer v. Murphy Oil case: dismissed an appeal without deciding it because it did not have a quorum to decide the case. Needless to say, it’s caused a huge stir that you can read about at NMC, Anderson Blogs, and Consumer Class Action and Mass Torts, among other places.

The case at issue was the novel case where plaintiffs sued oil companies for causing climate change that makes hurricanes—specifically, Katrina—worse. We can debate the plaintiff’s causation theory another day. The important point is that the Fifth Circuit couldn’t get a quorum to decide the case, presumably because the justices owned stock in the defendant companies, which included BP and other major oil companies. So the Court punted the case without deciding the appeal even though the issues were ripe for determination. I honestly did not know that was an option.

Oops. Looks like President Obama should have been in a bigger hurry in getting Justice Graves confirmed to fill Judge Barksdale’s seat on the Fifth.

It is almost guaranteed that the Gulf Oil Spill litigation will involve multiple appeals from the district courts to the court of appeals. But for the cases in the Fifth Circuit, there is an apparent likelihood that the appeals court will be unwilling unable to hear the appeal. This litigation is going to need an appellate court that has the guts “quorum” to decide the issues. In short, the litigation needs to be somewhere where the appellate court can hear the case. That’s somewhere other than the Fifth Circuit.

This means that the MDL should not be located in the states that comprise the Fifth Circuit: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. How big of an advantage would it be for the oil companies to get the MDL in front of a hand-picked judge in Houston with no appellate court in play? Too big.

The MDL panel needs to think about this and locate the MDL in another circuit. For instance, in the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Alabama and Florida. Or even in a court located on the other side of the county where there is a district judge and appellate court that can hear the case.

Incidentally, while I do not always agree with every decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, I cannot imagine our justices doing what the Fifth Circuit did in Comer v. Murphy Oil.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

After Friday’s Bizarre Fifth Circuit Non-decision, Gulf Oil Spill MDL Should Not be Located in 5th Circuit

On Friday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals did about the most bizarre thing that I can recall an appellate court ever doing in the Comer v. Murphy Oil case: dismissed an appeal without deciding it because it did not have a quorum to decide the case. Needless to say, it’s caused a huge stir that you can read about at NMC, Anderson Blogs, and Consumer Class Action and Mass Torts, among other places.

The case at issue was the novel case where plaintiffs sued oil companies for causing climate change that makes hurricanes—specifically, Katrina—worse. We can debate the plaintiff’s causation theory another day. The important point is that the Fifth Circuit couldn’t get a quorum to decide the case, presumably because the justices owned stock in the defendant companies, which included BP and other major oil companies. So the Court punted the case without deciding the appeal even though the issues were ripe for determination. I honestly did not know that was an option.

Oops. Looks like President Obama should have been in a bigger hurry in getting Justice Graves confirmed to fill Judge Barksdale’s seat on the Fifth.

It is almost guaranteed that the Gulf Oil Spill litigation will involve multiple appeals from the district courts to the court of appeals. But for the cases in the Fifth Circuit, there is an apparent likelihood that the appeals court will be unwilling unable to hear the appeal. This litigation is going to need an appellate court that has the guts “quorum” to decide the issues. In short, the litigation needs to be somewhere where the appellate court can hear the case. That’s somewhere other than the Fifth Circuit.

This means that the MDL should not be located in the states that comprise the Fifth Circuit: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. How big of an advantage would it be for the oil companies to get the MDL in front of a hand-picked judge in Houston with no appellate court in play? Too big.

The MDL panel needs to think about this and locate the MDL in another circuit. For instance, in the Eleventh Circuit, which includes Alabama and Florida. Or even in a court located on the other side of the county where there is a district judge and appellate court that can hear the case.

Incidentally, while I do not always agree with every decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, I cannot imagine our justices doing what the Fifth Circuit did in Comer v. Murphy Oil.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn