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

mslitigationreview

Eaton v. Frisby: a mess you can’t watch

Back on March 9 I had a post about the Eaton v. Frisby case and called it a mess worth watching. Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Swan Yerger made watching the case harder last Thursday by closing the courtroom to the press and public. In doing so, Judge Yerger apparently disregarded state Supreme Court rules for closing a court from the public. Jimmy Gates from the Clarion-Ledger objected, but was thrown out. The apparent justification for closing the courtroom was:

Yerger said attorneys for both sides agreed it should be closed to the media and the public.

On Sunday the Clarion-Ledger’s Ronnie Agnew wrote a scathing criticism of Judge Yerger’s decision:

How can the public have confidence in the judicial system when shenanigans that took place Thursday continue to occur, when people in charge of upholding the law conveniently ignore what the law states?

The events of Thursday represent a travesty of justice and Senior Judge Swan Yerger, no newcomer to the bench, ought to know the law better than with the judgment he showed that day. Yerger is hearing a $1 billion theft of trade lawsuit where officials at Eaton Aerospace contend five employees revealed trade secrets when they went to work for a North Carolina competitor.

While I’m not going to go so far as to call it a travesty of justice, Mr. Agnew has a point. The Eaton v. Frisby case is probably the biggest case pending in Hinds County, perhaps in the whole state. The parties are litigating the case at the expense of the taxpayers, who fund the judicial system. If Eaton and Frisby are not comfortable airing their dispute in public, then they should agree to a private arbitration where they pay the decision maker and can set whatever ground rules they want. There are strong public policy reasons favoring open courts, and parties should not be able to disregard those policies and close a court by agreement.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Eaton v. Frisby: a mess you can’t watch

Back on March 9 I had a post about the Eaton v. Frisby case and called it a mess worth watching. Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Swan Yerger made watching the case harder last Thursday by closing the courtroom to the press and public. In doing so, Judge Yerger apparently disregarded state Supreme Court rules for closing a court from the public. Jimmy Gates from the Clarion-Ledger objected, but was thrown out. The apparent justification for closing the courtroom was:

Yerger said attorneys for both sides agreed it should be closed to the media and the public.

On Sunday the Clarion-Ledger’s Ronnie Agnew wrote a scathing criticism of Judge Yerger’s decision:

How can the public have confidence in the judicial system when shenanigans that took place Thursday continue to occur, when people in charge of upholding the law conveniently ignore what the law states?

The events of Thursday represent a travesty of justice and Senior Judge Swan Yerger, no newcomer to the bench, ought to know the law better than with the judgment he showed that day. Yerger is hearing a $1 billion theft of trade lawsuit where officials at Eaton Aerospace contend five employees revealed trade secrets when they went to work for a North Carolina competitor.

While I’m not going to go so far as to call it a travesty of justice, Mr. Agnew has a point. The Eaton v. Frisby case is probably the biggest case pending in Hinds County, perhaps in the whole state. The parties are litigating the case at the expense of the taxpayers, who fund the judicial system. If Eaton and Frisby are not comfortable airing their dispute in public, then they should agree to a private arbitration where they pay the decision maker and can set whatever ground rules they want. There are strong public policy reasons favoring open courts, and parties should not be able to disregard those policies and close a court by agreement.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

More information emerges in Colson fraud case

Kingfish at the Jackson Jambalaya blog has an update on the Steve Colson fraud scandal.

One question is how many victims will there be? I received a not so nice email from one of the victims that stated that there are 250 people “going through this.”

Kingfish found this Mobile Press article from early March. I’m surprised by the limited amount of press attention that this story has received thus far. This appears to be a major scandal involving a lawyer, the mortgage industry and LSU football players who may have been investors in some of Colson’s companies.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Judge Vollor to step down after 20 years on bench

The Clarion-Ledger had the following blurb today stating that Judge Vollor is stepping down after twenty years on the bench:

Circuit Judge Frank Vollor of Vicksburg will retire May 31 after 20 years on the bench.

Vollor, 60, said he is stepping down for economic reasons. Gov. Haley Barbour will appoint someone to fill the unexpired term, which ends in December 2010.

Judge Vollor’s circuit includes Warren, Issaquena and Sharkey counties. Judge Isadore Patrick is also a Circuit Judge for the circuit.

With twenty years of service Judge Vollor, is eligible for full state retirement benefits. He can collect those benefits while also working in private practice. I do not know what his plans are, but as an experienced and respected trial court judge he can probably work all he wants as a mediator.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Statistics show few medical malpractice victims compensated

A Canadian Medical Association article compiles statistics from several studies regarding medical malpractice and the compensation of its victims. Studies show the following:

In 2004, Healthgrades, an independent health care ratings company…. [examined] 37 million patient records from all 50 states, representing 45% of all US hospital admissions, found 195,000 hospital deaths from preventable medical errors annually between 2000 and 2002, (www.healthgrades.com).

In 1990, Harvard researchers examined more than 30,000 randomly selected records from New York hospitals. They concluded that 1% of patients were negligently injured, while only 4% of those who were injured, sued.

Harvard researchers [concluded that jury awards and settlments were fair] when they examined files from 1452 malpractice claims (NEJM 2006;354[19]:2024-33). Almost three-quarters had outcomes consistent with their merit. Only 10% of patients received payouts in the absence of error, while 16% received no payout despite the presence of error. “Portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown,” the researchers concluded. The system performs “reasonably well” in dismissing such lawsuits and in compensating the injured.

The article also cited studies that show that jury awards are keeping up with the costs of medical care and are not out of line.

Attorneys who represent medical malpractice victims will not be surprised by these statistics. Experienced med-mal attorneys decline to accept the vast majority of cases that they review. Of the cases accepted, the negligence appears clear with substantial damages. But even with stringent screening, med-mal cases are difficult to win with juries looking for reasons to find for the physician or hospital.

There is also a “circle the wagons” mentality among physicians in Mississippi. This results in open hostility by physicians to plaintiffs and their attorneys, even from doctors who are not defendants in the case. In addition, Mississippi physicians almost never admit that another physician was negligent or that negligence caused the victim’s injuries. This stacks the deck in favor of medical defendants in Mississippi.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Conservative supreme court justices do not always side with big business

There is a good Bloomberg analysis of the recent pro-consumer decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the key points:

The Wyeth case illustrated one of the challenges companies face in some Supreme Court cases: persuading members of the court’s conservative wing to limit the powers of state courts and legislatures.

Clarence Thomas, a justice who typically joins the court’s conservatives on social issues, sided with the pro-consumer majority in the Wyeth case. Thomas wrote that the high court shouldn’t block state product-liability lawsuits simply because they interfere with federal objectives.

Similarly, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, another conservative on social issues, have said the Constitution doesn’t put any limits on damage awards.

The entire article is available at the above link.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Conservative supreme court justices do not always side with big business

There is a good Bloomberg analysis of the recent pro-consumer decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the key points:

The Wyeth case illustrated one of the challenges companies face in some Supreme Court cases: persuading members of the court’s conservative wing to limit the powers of state courts and legislatures.

Clarence Thomas, a justice who typically joins the court’s conservatives on social issues, sided with the pro-consumer majority in the Wyeth case. Thomas wrote that the high court shouldn’t block state product-liability lawsuits simply because they interfere with federal objectives.

Similarly, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, another conservative on social issues, have said the Constitution doesn’t put any limits on damage awards.

The entire article is available at the above link.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

Court allows Adams Homes to intervene into Wachovia-Colson interpleader case

United States Magistrate Judge John Roper entered an Order yesterday allowing Adams Homes to intervene into the Stephen Colson / Wachovia Bank interpleader action. The motion was unopposed and the order was a standard order prepared by Adams’ counsel. Adams will now be able to make its claim for over $600,000 of the $1.5 million deposited into the Court by Wachovia.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

U.S. Supreme Court upholds $80 million punitive damages verdict

The Supreme Court issued a one sentence order today dismissing the appeal of an $80 million punitive damages verdict in a tobacco case against Philip Morris. There are stories on the decision here and here. The plaintiff’s actual damages were $800,000.

Business interests hoped that the Court would use the case to set a firm limit on punitive damages. The Court did not, however, apparently accepting the Oregon Supreme Court’s finding that Philip Morris’ conduct was “extraordinarily reprehensible.”

The practical effect of the ruling is that it will weaken defense arguments that punitive damages are limited to a single digit ratio compared to the plaintiff’s actual damages. Here, the actual-punitive ratio was about 100 to 1. This makes it hard for a defendant in a case with a modest actual damages award to argue that its punitive exposure is capped no matter how bad its conduct was. I like the flexibility that the decision leaves courts to evaluate punitive damages awards.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn

U.S. Supreme Court upholds $80 million punitive damages verdict

The Supreme Court issued a one sentence order today dismissing the appeal of an $80 million punitive damages verdict in a tobacco case against Philip Morris. There are stories on the decision here and here. The plaintiff’s actual damages were $800,000.

Business interests hoped that the Court would use the case to set a firm limit on punitive damages. The Court did not, however, apparently accepting the Oregon Supreme Court’s finding that Philip Morris’ conduct was “extraordinarily reprehensible.”

The practical effect of the ruling is that it will weaken defense arguments that punitive damages are limited to a single digit ratio compared to the plaintiff’s actual damages. Here, the actual-punitive ratio was about 100 to 1. This makes it hard for a defendant in a case with a modest actual damages award to argue that its punitive exposure is capped no matter how bad its conduct was. I like the flexibility that the decision leaves courts to evaluate punitive damages awards.

Twitter
Facebook
Email
LinkedIn