factual basis claim in Mississippi

2025This Court has consistently held that “[o]f right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Upton, 240 So. 3d at 415 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tanksley, 608 So. 2d at 1155 ); see also Wood v. Safeway Ins.

2025The Association chose to file its complaint in chancery court. “[This Court has] described a plaintiff’s ability to choose a forum as a ‘right’: ‘Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.’” Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So. 3d 1051, 1064 (¶ 34) (Miss. 2012) (quoting Bayer Corp. v. Reed, 932 So. 2d 786, 790 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Flight Line v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992))).

2023Moreover, “[o]f right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Id. at 216 (¶11) (emphasis added) (quoting Hedgepeth, 975 So. 2d at 238 (¶10)). ¶22.

2020“Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Hedgepeth v. Johnson, 975 So. 2d 235, 238 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992)).

2004Burgess v. Lucky, 674 So.2d 506, 510 (Miss.1996).

2004Burgess v. Lucky, 674 So.2d 506, 510 (Miss.1996); see also Armond, 866 So.2d at 1098 ("plaintiff's choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons").

2019“Of right, the 3 plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hedgepeth v. Johnson, 975 So. 2d 235, 238 (Miss. 2008)). ¶7.

2004Burgess v. Lucky, 674 So.2d 506, 510 (Miss.1996); see also Armond, 866 So.2d at 1098 ("plaintiff's choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons").

2002It is the plaintiff's right to "select among the permissible venues, ... unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue." Id. (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So.2d 753, 754 (Miss. 1976); Great S. Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110 , 94 So.2d 912, 914-15 (1957)).

1999It is the plaintiff's right to "select among the permissible venues,...unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue." Id. (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So. 2d 753, 754 (Miss. 1976); Great S. Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110 , 94 So. 2d 912, 914-15 (1957)).

2008The factual basis requirement is met when the *1044 record "contain[s] `enough that the court may say with confidence the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged.'" Jones v. State, 936 So.2d 993, 999 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765, 767 (Miss. 1991)).

2007The factual basis requirement is met when the record "contain[s] `enough that the court may say with confidence the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged.'" Jones v. State, 936 So.2d 993, 999 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765, 767 (Miss.1991)).

2011This Court stated: “The purpose of the factual-basis rule is to make the court ‘delve beyond the admission of guilt lying on the surface and determine for itself whether there is substantial evidence that the petitioner did in fact commit those crimes he is charged with and is not entering the plea for some other reason that the law finds objectionable.’ ” Avant v. State, 55 So.3d 1115, 1119-20 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993)).

2010The purpose of the factual-basis rule is to make the court “delve beyond the admission of guilty lying on the surface and determine *1120 for itself whether there is substantial evidence that the petitioner did in fact commit those crimes he is charged with and is not entering the plea for some other reason that the law finds objectionable.” Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993). ¶ 11.

2002It is the plaintiff's right to "select among the permissible venues, ... unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue." Id. (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So.2d 753, 754 (Miss. 1976); Great S. Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110 , 94 So.2d 912, 914-15 (1957)).

2002It is the plaintiff's right to "select among the permissible venues, ... unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue." Id. (citing Mississippi Power Co. v. Luter, 336 So.2d 753, 754 (Miss. 1976); Great S. Box Co. of Miss. v. Barrett, 231 Miss. 101, 109-110 , 94 So.2d 912, 914-15 (1957)).

2008The factual basis requirement is met when the *1044 record "contain[s] `enough that the court may say with confidence the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged.'" Jones v. State, 936 So.2d 993, 999 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765, 767 (Miss. 1991)).

2007The factual basis requirement is met when the record "contain[s] `enough that the court may say with confidence the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged.'" Jones v. State, 936 So.2d 993, 999 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765, 767 (Miss.1991)).

2023Venue § 2 (2022). 6 credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So. 2d 382, 386 (¶6) (Miss. 2001) (quoting Flight Line Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992)); see also Herman Grant Co. v. Washington, 214 So. 3d 266, 271 (¶14) (Miss. 2017) (“It is the plaintiff’s prerogative to decide where, among permissible venues, to sue the defendant.”). ¶12.

2020“Therefore, absent weighty reasons, a plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed.” Washington, 214 So. 3d at 271 (¶ 14) (citing Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Estate of Heffner, 904 So. 2d 100, 102 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2004)).

2002“Absent a factual basis for an instruction, there is no error in refusing to grant it.” Bolton v. State, 752 So.2d 480, 485 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citing Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1990)).

1999Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1990). ¶ 25.

2001Furthermore, the trial court "must give the plaintiff the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and we do so on appeal as well." Id. at 1155 (quoting Jefferson v. Magee, 205 So.2d 281, 283 (Miss.1967)).

1998Furthermore, the trial court "must give the plaintiff the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and we do so on appeal as well." Id. at 1155 (quoting Jefferson v. Magee, 205 So. 2d 281, 283 (Miss. 1967)).

2020If the plaintiff does this, then “the plaintiff’s choice of venue must be given the benefit of reasonable doubt and ‘must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Flight Line, 608 So. 2d at 1155 ). ¶7.

2020If the plaintiff does this, then “the plaintiff’s choice of venue must be given the benefit of reasonable doubt and ‘must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.’” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Flight Line, 608 So. 2d at 1155 ). ¶7.

2018"However, venue is a valuable right to the defendant as well and timely objections to improper venue must be honored." Park on Lakeland Drive , 941 So.2d at 207 . ¶ 23.

2011Mississippi Code Section 11-11-3 is a plain and unambiguous statute that should be applied according to its plain meaning.7 “Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” 8 To determine if a plaintiff’s choice of venue is proper, “[i]t is necessary to begin with the ‘well-pleaded allegations of the complaint[,]’” which may be supplemented by affidavits or “any ‘other evidence in cognizable form.’” 9 Our venue statute “lays out four venue options

2018"The decision to grant or deny a motion for a change of venue lies within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless the trial court abuses its discretion." Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc. v. Ratliff , 954 So.2d 427 , 433 (Miss. 2007). "[T]he plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue." Wilkerson v. Goss , 113 So.3d 544 , 548 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Hedgepeth v. Johnson , 975 So.2d 235 , 238 (Miss. 2008).

2018“The decision to grant or deny a motion for a change of venue lies within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless the trial court abuses its discretion.” Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc. v. Ratliff, 954 So. 2d 427, 433 (Miss. 2007). “[T]he plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Wilkerson v. Goss, 113 So. 3d 544, 548 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Hedgepeth v. Johnson, 975 7 So. 2d 235 , 238 (Miss. 2008).

2017Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Bolton v. State, 752 So.2d 480 , 485 (¶ 24) (Miss.

2002“Absent a factual basis for an instruction, there is no error in refusing to grant it.” Bolton v. State, 752 So.2d 480, 485 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citing Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1990)).

2025Co., 114 So. 3d 714, 717-18 (Miss. 2013); Snyder v. Logan, 905 So. 2d 531, 533 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Guice v. 4 This Court has stated that the word shall indicates a mandatory provision in a statute.

2025This Court has consistently held that “[o]f right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues, and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Upton, 240 So. 3d at 415 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tanksley, 608 So. 2d at 1155 ); see also Wood v. Safeway Ins.

2025The Association chose to file its complaint in chancery court. “[This Court has] described a plaintiff’s ability to choose a forum as a ‘right’: ‘Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.’” Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So. 3d 1051, 1064 (¶ 34) (Miss. 2012) (quoting Bayer Corp. v. Reed, 932 So. 2d 786, 790 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Flight Line v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992))).

2025The Association chose to file its complaint in chancery court. “[This Court has] described a plaintiff’s ability to choose a forum as a ‘right’: ‘Of right, the plaintiff selects among the permissible venues and his choice must be sustained unless in the end there is no credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.’” Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton, 94 So. 3d 1051, 1064 (¶ 34) (Miss. 2012) (quoting Bayer Corp. v. Reed, 932 So. 2d 786, 790 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Flight Line v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992))).

2025Co., 114 So. 3d 714, 717-18 (Miss. 2013); Snyder v. Logan, 905 So. 2d 531, 533 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Guice v. 4 This Court has stated that the word shall indicates a mandatory provision in a statute.

2023Venue § 2 (2022). 6 credible evidence supporting the factual basis for the claim of venue.” Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So. 2d 382, 386 (¶6) (Miss. 2001) (quoting Flight Line Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 (Miss. 1992)); see also Herman Grant Co. v. Washington, 214 So. 3d 266, 271 (¶14) (Miss. 2017) (“It is the plaintiff’s prerogative to decide where, among permissible venues, to sue the defendant.”). ¶12.

2020Co., 179 So. 3d 1082, 1085 (¶9) (Miss. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (other citation omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Hedgepeth v. Johnson, 975 So. 2d 235, 238 (¶10) (Miss. 2008)). ¶98.

2020“Therefore, absent weighty reasons, a plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed.” Washington, 214 So. 3d at 271 (¶ 14) (citing Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Estate of Heffner, 904 So. 2d 100, 102 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2004)).

2013Furthermore, “[i]n suits involving multiple defendants, where venue is good as to one defendant, it is good as to all defendants.” Estate of Jones, 716 So.2d at 627 . ¶ 9.

2013See Estate of Jones, 716 So.2d at 627 .

2013However, the circuit court did not include on-the-record factual findings of its analysis of the correlation of the Cobb factors as required by Mackey v. State, 37 So.3d 1161, 1167 (¶ 23) (Miss.2010). 2 Ratcliff pled guilty in 2006; however, Mackey did not establish the factual-basis requirement until 2010. 3 I re spectfully submit that the factual-basis requirement as a procedural safeguard, which was set forth in Mackey , should not be applied retroactively in this particular case since the banishment was limited to a defined geographical area and specified time.

2011In Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388, 408 (¶ 52) (Miss.2009), the supreme court explained what must be shown factually to entitle someone to a manslaughter instruction: Heat-of-passion manslaughter requires “a state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter.” Hobson v. State, 730 So.2d 20, 26-27 [(¶ 22)] (Miss.1998) (quoting Tait v. State, 669 So.2d 85, 89 (Miss.1996)).