Attorney @ Blog: Recent Comments

Comment on The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Anarchy

Justin — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:01:14 GMT

You and me both, man.

Comment on The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Anarchy

Bardwell — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:58:06 GMT

I really don't know, and honestly, I really don't care about zoning enough to burn much energy thinking about it.

Comment on The Fine Line Between Adaptation and Anarchy

Justin — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:23:54 GMT

You've seriously got to explain to me the difference between the facts of the Fairview case and the facts of Butler Snow...

I really need to know why exactly those two are different.

Why is spot zoning okay for Ridgeland and big corporate donors to campaigns and not for a restaurant?

really. explain it to me.

Comment on A Bit of Good News for David Williams

Justin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:01:22 GMT

I'm more interested in the priest/penitent issue which will surely be dodged and not addressed as much as I would like.

Comment on A Bit of Good News for David Williams

Bardwell — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:56:16 GMT

Excellent point.

Comment on A Bit of Good News for David Williams

Anderson — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:51:15 GMT

The Brown decision you just blogged suggests that, if there's any shred of (1) evidence that it was a suicide and (2) consistency on the Court, a reversal and remand seem likely.

“In homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely."

Comment on Continuing Torts Venture Into Caves

Anderson — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:22:48 GMT

It might be the correct ruling, on a Rule 56 motion. The catch is that the tort must be "occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from an original violation." So at trial, the defendant should seek a special verdict asking whether the negligence was removal from the feeding program (not a continuing tort) or failure to put her back on it (continuing tort). If the jury fails to agree w/ the 2d part, then the defendant could get a JNOV even if the jury finds for the plaintiff on the 1st part.

(Of course, not having researched it or read the briefs, I concede there may be some good argument I'm missing.)

I wonder how this would work with a more usual malpractice case. Doc screws up, then fails to notice his screw-up for a week thereafter. Is the failure to notice arguably negligent in itself and thus a continuing tort?

Comment on In Banton, a Man's Yard is Not His Castle

Bardwell — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:37:27 GMT

I don't think Charlie Ross had much of the "castle crowd" in his corner in 2007. That may have been his problem.

Comment on In Banton, a Man's Yard is Not His Castle

Anderson — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:07:23 GMT

I don't think anyone should be allowed to plead the castle doctrine unless they live in an actual castle, with parapets and a drawbridge.

It could only improve much of the architecture in Madison County, that's for sure.

Comment on Great Moments in Mississippi Legal Writing

Patrick — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:08:04 GMT

"It appears that the defendants were on a fishing expedition with the pathologist, attempting to catch evidence which would indicate that the non-surgical scars on Ronnie Travis's body caused his demise." Harris v. State, 861 So.2d 1003, 1024 (Miss. 2003)