Mississippi Lawyer Blog

Now that the Republicans have gained control of the Mississippi House or Representatives, they are seeking more tort reform. They are doing this even though the doctors' own insurance company say they no longer need any more! Yes, you read that correctly. The CEO of the doctors' insurance company, Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi ("MACM") was quoted in a Clarion Ledger article as follows: "It would be hard for me to argue more tort reform is needed," Mike Houpt said. "We're content with what we have." Yet the Republicans want to lower the caps on damages AND institute a "loser pays" system which would make the loser of a lawsuit pay the other side's cost. Whose agenda are the Republicans pushing?

The "loser pays" idea is simple. Over the course of a lawsuit, each side spends money on such things as depositions, expert witnesses, copying, etc. Costs can easily reach $10,000 in the most "simple" car wreck cases. "Loser pays" would require the "loser" of a lawsuit to pay the other winner's costs as well as their own. So who is this designed to hurt? To a huge company like State Farm, $10,000 is nothing. To the average Mississippian, $10,000 is more than most folks have in savings. There is not way the could afford to pay this which means they would not file a lawsuit for fear of having to pay this kind of money.

Now, keep in mind that the doctors are "content" with what they have. This is the same group who claimed they were being forced out of Mississippi just 10 years ago. Now things are going so well that the doctors are receiving refunds on their insurance premiums and their insurance company is making a huge profit. I wonder if the quality of health care in Mississippi is going up as well? Are the number of deaths and serious injuries due to medical negligence going down? Oh well, who really cares about that. As long as the doctors are making money and forcing us to wait an hour to see them on every visit then things are fine. But, I digress.

The Republican party is not looking out for Mississippi citizens. If they were, they would fight like hell to make sure that anyone who harms a child or an elderly person or who leaves a family without a mother or father (or both) would have to fully compensate that person or their family. Instead, they are looking out for big businesses and insurance companies. Always have, always will. If your child is harmed don't expect the Republicans to care because they will be supporting the people who harmed him/her.

Sound harsh? Well it's not. Tort reform does not protect us from so-called "frivolous lawsuits". Tort reform is designed to protect big business and insurance companies from legitimate lawsuits. "Frivolous lawsuits" scare no one. If any defendant can show me one "frivolous lawsuit" which has ever gone to trial, received a verdict, and then been affirmed on appeal I will have my partner eat his hat. Big business needs protection when their products or actions seriously injure, maim, or kill innocent people and the Republicans are paid handsomely to help them.

Continue reading "More Tort Reform for Mississippi personal injury and medical malpracitce lawsuits? Thank you sir may I have another?" »

Kudos to Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert ("Dont call me Herbert") Hosemann for seeking additional money from Morgan Keegan for defrauding Mississippians. I was reading an article today in the Clarion Ledger about the hearing and this comment caught my attention:

"The proceedings before Jackson lawyer Cliff Hodge, appointed by the secretary of state as the hearing officer, is expected to last three weeks. The hearing is being held in the third-floor courtroom of the Mississippi College School of Law."

So what's the problem you may ask? Cliff Hodge and Secretary of State Hosemann worked together at Phelps Dunbar for years. I'm sure that this connection was disclosed to all parties before the hearing but nothing was mentioned about their connection in the article. Republicans are always accusing former Democratic Attorney General Mike Moore and current AG Jim Hood for associating their "friends" on cases so I think the issue needs to be brought out in this story. I'm sure Mr. Hodge and his firm isn't working for free in this case but it's on the taxpayer's dime.

Continue reading "Mississippi Secretary of State Seeks $65 Million from Morgan Keegan; Conflict of Interest?" »

The Clarion Ledger had an interesting article this morning about immunity for Mississippi police officers who are involved in automobile accidents. The article mentions one of our previous cases, Harris v. City of Jackson which you can read about here.

It is truly a shame that police officers and other state, county, and city workers have immunity for car accidents for which you and I would be held responsible. The only way to overcome this immunity is to show the Government worker caused the accident by acting with "reckless disregard" to a person's rights. In the Harris case, the officer was speeding at 100 mph and ran a red light smashing into our client's son who was turning on a green arrow. This was held to be "reckless disregard".

Continue reading "Immunity for Mississippi Police officers nvolved in crashes upsets innocent victims" »

Clients have called our office asking the question: "When is it okay for my employer to tell me I can't compete with my employer's business when I quit?" To answer that question directly - not very often.

Many times in employer/employee relationships, a boss will ask their employee to sign what is commonly called a "covenant not to compete" when they are hired. The purpose of this "covenant" is to protect the employer from being burned if an employee is learning the trade from their employer and then decides to take that knowledge and open up a competing business across the street. You can see where the original business would want to protect itself in a situation like this. At least that was the reason these agreements were allowed in the first place.

What has developed has been "agreements" that restrict employees in no certain terms regarding time and area. Mississippi Courts don't like this. In a capitalist society that encourages freedom of enterprise, the law does not favor restricting free trade and individual freedom. Our Supreme Court has been clear about this issue: Covenants not to compete are not favorites of the law. These agreements must be reasonable and specific as to the time and geographic scope of the restriction.

In other words, an agreement signed between an employer and an employee that states you may not open another business within two months of quitting right across the street from the employer's business would more than likely be acceptable under our current law.

An agreement for an employee to never open a business in the state of Mississippi after leaving the employer's business for whatever reason is not an enforceable agreement.
If you have any questions about laws regarding covenants not to compete, feel free to call our office or email me at: ericb@coxwelllaw.com

A man died in the hospital a few days after a chase with law enforcement officers.. The FBI is currently investigating this incident. Now, I am not saying that any police officer did anything which caused this man's death. However, one statement from the news story caught my interest. One of the officers was quoted as saying "I can tell you that our guys saw no one break a law out there, except for the suspect that Jackson was chasing."

My response to that is in 16 years of handling police misconduct cases in Mississippi I have rarely, if ever, had another police officer report a fellow officer for abuse. Some call this phenomenon "the thin blue line" which represents the camaraderie of police officers. However, to others it represents a code of silence among police officers to suppress the truth.

Think about that: police officers who are sworn to uphold the law are compelled by this "thin blue line" not to tell the truth. Police officers probably justify this stance by pointing out that the person assaulted or abused was breaking the law and got what he deserved. Many citizens feel the same way. But by committing an assault, or worse, and then lying about it, aren't the police breaking the law?

This practice needs to be stopped. So-called police Internal Affairs "investigations" are usually very insufficient. The internal affairs investigators are also cops and, like other officers, don't want to accuse a fellow officer of any improper conduct. What happens is that this practice is allowed to continue until something really bad happens and you see a full fledged FBI investigation which leads to arrests, indictments, and convictions.

Continue reading "Police Misconduct in Mississippi: Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil" »

A bill has been introduced called the Democracy Restoration Act. The purpose of this law is to restore the voting rights to people who have a Federal Conviction. Currently a Federal Conviction strips a man or woman or their right to vote in Federal Elections. There are 5.3 million people who cannot vote because of a conviction. This includes minor and nonviolent offenses. I was trained in the law with the understand that our Justice System served to punish and rehabilitate. Some people argue that rehabilitation has long been forgotten, but in Federal Correctional Facilities they have many helpful programs. But what is the rationale for stopping a person from voting after he has served his sentence and paid his or her debt to society? The person is still alive and a citizen of the United States. The person still works, pays taxes, vacations, and has a family in America. Are we just not willing to forgive people? Our Nation has been guided by Christian principles yet we won't let go the need to kick a person while they are down and then kick them some more for good measure.

Many States take away voting rights when a citizen has been convicted. Some allow those rights to be restored automatically when the person has served all punishment, including probation. Others required the person to file a Petition and jump "hoops" before they can get their voting rights restored. In Mississippi the process is not easy and by no means guaranteed. This archaic idea that we have to deny someone the right to vote because they may have done one thing wrong as a teenager or at another time in their life needs to be ended and put to rest. The negative effects of a felony conviction are the results of our history from England. I wrote a Blog earlier explaining how many of our laws and ideas are the result of our past that were brought over by the colonists. This idea that a "convict of felony" must bear life long punishment is one of those old and unnecessary ideas. One other thing needed is an expungement or expunction statute that would allow a person to clear their record if they are convicted of a nonviolent, first offense.

Hopefully these changes will come to America. There are a lot of changes we need to help our citizens put their lives back together. I like to remind people that "good people can make bad choices and mistakes. That does not make them a bad person forever."

Merrida Coxwell has over 29 years of experience helping people charged with criminal offenses. He has served as attorney for hundreds of people helping them through troubling and difficult times in their life. For a free consultation call 601-948-1600.

Accidents between individuals driving their cars on the public roads and police cars can have devastating effects. Today in the news there was $15 million dollar settlement between a County in Illinois and a family after a fatal collision. In that case a police officer ran a light hitting a car killing two people and causing permanent brain damage to the 3rd. Apparently the police car did not have on its siren or blue lights. This sounds like a tragedy that could have been avoided.

It is not uncommon to see these types of accidents in Mississippi between police cars and people driving on the road. We recently tried a case involving the exact same issue and we received the maximum verdict allowable by law for the injury. In Mississippi accidents of this type are governed by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. This law puts limits on the damages that a person or family can recover from either injuries or the death of someone. The Mississippi Law is extremely unfair. For example, if three people are seriously injured in an automobile accident with a police car, and it is proven the officer acted with reckless disregard for their safety, Mississippi law limits the recovery of all three to a total of $500,000.00. Yes, that's right. If two of the people have brain damage and will never be able to function again, the amount they have to split is $500,000.00. This seems not only unfair, unjust, but also cruel.

At Coxwell & Associates we handle accidents between law enforcement vehicle and other drivers. In the most recent case we obtained the maximum award of $500,000.00 for out clients. Our attorneys also review and accept some serious civil rights cases. In one case against the City of Jackson we obtained a 2.1 million dollar jury verdict in Federal Court. The City appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court before finally surrendering and paying our clients. Dedication to our clients and persistence are our traits. For a free case evaluation call at 601.948.1600 or e mail us through our website.

Representing DUI Accident Victims

Charles R. "Chuck" Mullins, a partner at Coxwell & Associates, represents individuals who are injured by drunk drivers in Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi and all over the state. DUI vehicle accidents most often lead to the serious injury or death of innocent victims. Shockingly, a third of the time those responsible for a DUI crash are repeat DUI offenders. In addition to representing injury and wrongful death clients in car and motorcycle accidents Coxwell & Associates also has a specialized focus in DUI accident lawsuits in Mississippi.

DUI Laws in Mississippi

DUI laws in Mississippi dictate that anyone operating a vehicle with a minimum blood alcohol level of .08 percent or while under the influence of a narcotic is "driving under the influence" (DUI). In these cases, the intoxicated driver is always liable for any damages; however, individuals may share negligence, such as those who supplied the driver with alcohol.

Civil Legal Action

In addition to the criminal charges that the liable party will face for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim or victim's family (in the case of wrongful death) can choose to file a civil lawsuit against the defendant to recover financial compensation for the consequences of his or her careless action.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a DUI accident, especially if it caused an injury, you need a lawyer. File a DUI accident lawsuit with the help of Charles R. "Chuck" Mullins of Coxwell & Associates. We can help you, and your family, get the restitution to which you are entitled.

Chuck Mullins, partner at Coxwell & Associates located in Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi, defends citizens whose constitutional rights have been violated. These include criminal cases and police brutality cases which result in serious personal injury or death. If you feel your constitutional rights have been violated, contact Chuck Mullins. The following article concerns a local Chicago ordinance outlawing gun ownership. Do you agree or disagree:

CHICAGO - A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, finding a Supreme Court ruling in a District of Columbia case doesn't apply.

The three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the National Rifle Association's appeal of a judge's ruling in December that upheld the Chicago and Oak Park ordinances.

Last year the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self protection. The appeals panel agreed with U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur's decision that the high court's ruling dealt with a federal gun ban and the Second Amendment could not be used to overturn local ordinances.

Chicago officials immediately praised the ruling. "We are pleased with this decision because it means that we can continue to enforce our gun ordinance," said city law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle.

Hoyle said she understood the NRA intended to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. NRA attorney William Howard did not immediately return a voicemail.
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

A panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor reached a similar conclusion about the reach of the Second Amendment in a case from New York over a state law banning the possession of chuka sticks -- a weapon composed of two sticks joined at the ends by a rope or chain.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The court is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between Alameda County and gun show promoters.

JACKSON, Miss.---Jackie Williams and Renna Fisher, African American principals of Fish & Fisher,a ten-year old construction company, have filed a civil racial discrimination and conspiracy action against Toyota of North America; the State of Mississippi Development Authority; and Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi. The legal action claims that Fish & Fisher, Inc., a Mississippi Corporationlocated in Jackson, MS, was denied the opportunity to bid on the Toyota Plant construction project in Blue Springs, MS, as a prime contractor. Fish & Fisher, Inc. is represented by Byron Perkins, of The Cochran Firm Birmingham, and Kevin J. White, of Coxwell & Associates. They allege that Toyota, with the aid and assistance of the State of Mississippi`s Development Authority, held a closed bid for white-only prime contractors which was racially discriminatory in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.
While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."
Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

Eleven states also are echoing the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.
Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.
Montejo's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department's brief.

Chuck Mullins handles felony criminal cases in Mississippi. If you have a criminal case, contact Coxwell & Associates.