stare decisis doctrine in Mississippi

2022In Caves, the Court reaffirmed the MTCA’s “judicially created” discovery rule based on “the doctrine of stare decisis” because the Legislature had reenacted the MTCA’s statute of limitations “without addressing or countermanding [the] Court’s decision in Barnes.” Caves, 991 So. 2d at 154 (¶¶46-47).

2016The proponents of the Brantley test have yet to justify why such a break with precedent was warranted or necessary, notwithstanding Chief Justice Waller’s arguments to the contrary. [E]ven where this Court determines a prior interpretation of a statute to be incorrect, “we will nevertheless continue to apply the previous interpretation, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, upon finding the Legislature amended or reenacted the statute without correcting the prior interpretation.” Caves v. Yarbrough, 991 So. 2d 142, 154 (Miss. 2008) (holding that stare decisis required adherence to a judic

2016Moore v. Molpus, 578 So.2d 624, 634 (Miss.1991).

2016Moore v. Molpus, 578 So. 2d 624, 634 (Miss. 3 Not only does the majority’s holding contravene the statute itself, it contravenes the notion that “criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused.” Lewis v. State, 765 So. 2d 493, 499 (Miss. 2000).

2016Moore v. Molpus, 578 So. 2d 624, 634 (Miss. 3 Not only does the majority’s holding contravene the statute itself, it contravenes the notion that “criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused.” Lewis v. State, 765 So. 2d 493, 499 (Miss. 2000).

2016Moore v. Molpus, 578 So. 2d 624, 634 (Miss. 8 Not only does the majority’s holding contravene the statute itself, it contravenes the notion that “criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused.” Lewis v. State, 765 So. 2d 493, 499 (Miss. 2000).

2016Specifically, Chief Justice Waller characterized the majority opinion as “depart[ing] from . . . precedent without regard for the fundamental legal doctrine of stare decisis.” Id. at 1115 .

2016See Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville, 158 So.3d 1106, 1115 (Miss.2015) (Waller, C.J., dissenting) (characterizing the majority’s new test as a “departure] from ... precedent without regard for the fundamental legal doctrine of stare decisis ”).

2008Rather than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals [4] sought "enlightenment" by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the "connections" or "substantial connections" test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions. [5] "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a `sufficient degree of `connection' with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Id. at

2005Rather 3 Seven judges concurring, no judges dissenting and three judges not participating. 21 than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals 4 sought “enlightenment” by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the “connections” or “substantial connections” test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions.5 “The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a ‘sufficient degree of ‘connection’ with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of

2008Found., 276 So.2d 661, 671 (Miss.1973) ("a decision of this Court is binding in its effect and unless mischievous resulting in detriment to the public, it will not be overruled although wrongly decided"); Westmoreland v. State, 246 So.2d 487, 497 (Miss.1971) ("This Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis and under this doctrine we follow our former decisions, unless such decisions are manifestly wrong and mischievous in their results"); New York Life Ins.

2006Found., 276 So. 2d 661, 671 (Miss. 1973) (“a decision of this Court is binding in its effect and unless mischievous resulting in detriment to the public, it will not be overruled although wrongly decided”); Westmoreland v. State, 246 So. 2d 487, 497 (Miss. 1971) (“This Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis and under this doctrine we follow our former decisions, unless such decisions are manifestly wrong and mischievous in their results”); New York Life Ins.

2008Found., 276 So.2d 661, 671 (Miss.1973) ("a decision of this Court is binding in its effect and unless mischievous resulting in detriment to the public, it will not be overruled although wrongly decided"); Westmoreland v. State, 246 So.2d 487, 497 (Miss.1971) ("This Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis and under this doctrine we follow our former decisions, unless such decisions are manifestly wrong and mischievous in their results"); New York Life Ins.

2006Found., 276 So. 2d 661, 671 (Miss. 1973) (“a decision of this Court is binding in its effect and unless mischievous resulting in detriment to the public, it will not be overruled although wrongly decided”); Westmoreland v. State, 246 So. 2d 487, 497 (Miss. 1971) (“This Court follows the doctrine of stare decisis and under this doctrine we follow our former decisions, unless such decisions are manifestly wrong and mischievous in their results”); New York Life Ins.

2008Rather than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals [4] sought "enlightenment" by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the "connections" or "substantial connections" test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions. [5] "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a `sufficient degree of `connection' with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Id. at

2005Rather 3 Seven judges concurring, no judges dissenting and three judges not participating. 21 than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals 4 sought “enlightenment” by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the “connections” or “substantial connections” test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions.5 “The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a ‘sufficient degree of ‘connection’ with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of

2020Bd. of Supervisors v. Lakeland Income Props., LLC, 241 So. 3d 1279, 1283 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2018) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Caves, 991 So. 2d at 153 (¶ 43)).

2018Bd. of Supervisors v. Lakeland Income Properties LLC , 241 So.3d 1279 , 1283 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2018). ¶13.

2022Caves v. Yarbrough, 991 So. 2d 142, 152 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Smith v. State, 839 So. 2d 489, 495 (Miss. 2003)).

2008Smith, 839 So.2d at 495 .

2008Co. v. Nessossis, 189 Miss. 414, 423 , 196 So. 766 (Miss.1940) ("[I]t is the settled rule that prior decisions will not be overruled unless manifestly and undoubtedly wrong, and mischievous in operation and effect"); Childress v. State, 188 Miss. 573, 577 , 195 So. 583 (Miss.1940) ("Unless mischievous in its effect, and resulting in detriment to the public, a case will not be overruled although wrongly decided"). ¶ 38.

2008Co. v. Nessossis, 189 Miss. 414, 423 , 196 So. 766 (Miss.1940) ("[I]t is the settled rule that prior decisions will not be overruled unless manifestly and undoubtedly wrong, and mischievous in operation and effect"); Childress v. State, 188 Miss. 573, 577 , 195 So. 583 (Miss.1940) ("Unless mischievous in its effect, and resulting in detriment to the public, a case will not be overruled although wrongly decided"). ¶ 38.

1997More importantly, the majority today ignores the doctrine of stare decisis. "[I]t is indisputable that stare decisis is a basic self-governing principle within the Judicial Branch, which is entrusted with the sensitive and difficult task of fashioning and preserving a jurisprudential system that is not based upon `an arbitrary discretion.'" Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172 , 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2370 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) (citing The Federalist, No. 78, p. 490 (H.

1997More importantly, the majority today ignores the doctrine of stare decisis. "[I]t is indisputable that stare decisis is a basic self-governing principle within the Judicial Branch, which is entrusted with the sensitive and difficult task of fashioning and preserving a jurisprudential system that is not based upon `an arbitrary discretion.'" Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172 , 109 S.Ct. 2363, 2370 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989) (citing The Federalist, No. 78, p. 490 (H.

2022In Punzo, the Court noted that the MTCA’s discovery rule “is particularly important” given the MTCA’s “relatively short one-year statute of limitations.” Punzo, 861 So. 2d at 345 (¶18). 6 discover in order to trigger the running of the statute of limitations, we ordinarily are guided by the wording of a statute’s discovery provision.” Id. (emphasis added).

2022In Punzo, the Court noted that the MTCA’s discovery rule “is particularly important” given the MTCA’s “relatively short one-year statute of limitations.” Punzo, 861 So. 2d at 345 (¶18). 6 discover in order to trigger the running of the statute of limitations, we ordinarily are guided by the wording of a statute’s discovery provision.” Id. (emphasis added).

2021Even if we are of the opinion that this Court’s past decision was wrongly decided, we are not to overrule it unless it is mischievous and it results in a detriment to the public.5 Land Comm’r v. Hutton, 307 So. 2d 415, 421 (Miss. 1974) (“[A] decision of this Court is binding in its 5 The words of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts are enlightening about the principles of the doctrine of stare decisis: Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) is the legal term for fidelity to precedent.

2018Co., 107 Miss. at 899 , 66 So. at 280 . 16 Justice Robertsons’s “[c]areful, but not exhaustive, research reveal[ed] . . . no less than eighteen articulations of the test for determining whether and when the circumstantial evidence burden of proof rule should apply.” Montgomery, 515 So. 2d at 849-850 (Robertson, J., concurring).

2016And when the Brantley test was applied in City of Magee v. Jones, 161 So. 3d 1047 (Miss. 2015), Justice Pierce criticized the majority for “fail[ing] to appreciate the purpose” of discretionary- function immunity is “to limit judicial ‘second-guessing’ of the state Legislature.” City of Magee, 161 So. 3d at 1052 (Pierce, J., dissenting).

2016And when the Brantley test was applied in City of Magee v. Jones, 161 So. 3d 1047 (Miss. 2015), Justice Pierce criticized the majority for “fail[ing] to appreciate the purpose” of discretionary- function immunity is “to limit judicial ‘second-guessing’ of the state Legislature.” City of Magee, 161 So. 3d at 1052 (Pierce, J., dissenting).

2015See Gebben, 108 So.3d at 969-70 ; Sheffield v. State, 64 So.3d 529, 532-33 (Miss.Ct.App.2011).

2015See Gebben, 108 So.3d at 969-70 ; Sheffield v. State, 64 So.3d 529, 532-33 (Miss.Ct.App.2011).

2014“An attorney should be able to present his case without fear that this Court will ignore the doctrine of stare decisis.” McFarland v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 919 So.2d 894, 907 (Miss.2005) (Randolph, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). “[A] former decision of this court should not be departed from, unless the rule therein announced is not only manifestly wrong, but mischievous.” Caves, 991 So.2d at 151 . ¶ 56.