 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stewart v. District Attorney for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District for the State of Mississippi8/23/2005
ten files the district attorney's office had on Gary Stewart. Mel Riley, an investigator for the district attorney's office, wrote the Mississippi Department of Public Safety requesting a driver's license photograph of Gary Stewart, with a certain driver's license number. The Department of Public Safety sent Riley a copy of a photograph of the white male who obtained the fake identification card using Stewart's personal information. Upon realizing that the wrong individual had been arrested, on March 28, 2000, Judge Landrum dismissed the false pretense charges against Stewart.
. Stewart filed this complaint in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County on May 16, 2001, against the Department of Public Safety for the State of Mississippi, the District Attorney's Office for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District, the Jones County, Mississippi Sheriff's Department, the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Sheriff's Department, and John Does "A" through "Z." In his complaint, Stewart asserted claims of false arrest, unreasonable seizure, and violation of his due process rights stemming from his unlawful arrest by the defendants. Stewart's claims against the Jones County, Mississippi Sheriff's Department and the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Sheriff's Department were settled prior to trial. Further, Stewart entered an agreed order on January 30, 2002, dismissing the Department of Public Safety for the State of Mississippi and transferring the case to the Second Judicial District of Jones County, Mississippi. The remaining defendant of Stewart's complaint was the District Attorney's Office for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District.
. Circuit Court Judge Robert G. Helfrich was appointed as special judge to preside over the case, as Judge Landrum had recused himself. The district attorney filed a motion for summary judgment on Stewart's claims on March 6, 2003. The court granted the motion on October 31, 2003. Aggrieved by the trial court's grant of summary judgment against his claims, Stewart appeals raising the following four issues:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT APPLIED THE PROPER STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPER?
II. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY WERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER DUTIES, AND THUS DISCRETIONARY, AND WERE HER ACTIONS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE?
III. WHETHER THE DOCTRINES OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI TORT CLAIMS ACT BAR STEWART'S ACTION AGAINST THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY?
IV. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS?
. Although this case presents a very unfortunate series of events which befell Stewart, this Court finds no reversible error, and therefore we affirm.
LEGAL ANALYSIS STANDARD OF REVIEW
. Stewart essentially raises one key issue, which is whether or not summary judgment was proper, and advances four arguments as to why he contends summary judgment was improper. In addressing Stewart's positions, we will maintain his arguments as he presents them in order to clearly address each of his contentions. As such, the standard of review for each of the sub-issues, addressed as separate issues, is the same, which is stated as follows:
This Court applies a de novo standard of review to a grant of summary judgment by the trial court. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. Russell v. Orr, 700 So. 2d 619, 622 (Miss. 1997). A motion for summary judgment lies only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|