 |
 |
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
d the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. M.R.C.P. 56(c). This Court does not try issues on a Rule 56 motion; it only determines whether there are issues to be tried. Townsend v. Estate of Gilbert, 616 So. 2d 333, 335 (Miss. 1993). The presence of fact issues in the record does not per se entitle a party to avoid summary judgment. "The court must be convinced that the factual issue is a material one, one that matters in an outcome determinative sense . . . the existence of a hundred contested issues of fact will not thwart summary judgment where there is no genuine dispute regarding the material issues of fact." Simmons v. Thompson Mach. of Miss., Inc., 631 So. 2d 798, 801 (Miss. 1994) (citing Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 252 (Miss. 1985)).
Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So. 2d 152, 156 ( ) (Miss. 2004).
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT APPLIED THE PROPER STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPER?
DISCUSSION
. The proper standard for determining whether or not to grant a party's motion for summary judgment is addressed by Rule 56(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56 (c) states:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
. In order to adequately address whether or not the trial judge correctly addressed this standard, a brief explanation of the materials which the trial judge relied upon in making his decision is warranted. In its motion for summary judgment, the district attorney contends that Stewart lacks a cause of action in light of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, as codified by Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 11-46-1 through 11-46-23 (Rev. 2002). In support of this contention, the district attorney attached as exhibits the capias issued by the Jones County Circuit Court, the waiver of extradition signed by Stewart, the transcript of Stewart's arraignment hearing, a copy of Stewart's bond, the transcript of Stewart's motion to dismiss, the order releasing Stewart on bond, the deposition of Stewart, and the deposition of Mel Riley, an investigator for the district attorney's office. In addition to these exhibits, the district attorney attached numerous authorities supporting the position that qualified immunity is applicable under the present circumstances.
. The record does not reflect that the trial judge improperly construed the evidence in the light most favorable to the state agency, nor does the record support Stewart's theory that all reasonable inferences were drawn in the State's favor. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the trial judge misconstrued the applicable standard in reviewing a motion for summary judgment.
. Stewart also argues that the trial court's grant of the district attorney's motion for summary judgment was improper in light of Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 25-31-6 (Rev. 2003) and 19-25-35 (Rev. 2003). Mississippi Code Annotated § 25-31-6 addresses the qualifications, powers and duties, and method of removal for legal assistants to district attorneys and states as follows:
Legal assistants to district attorneys shall be regularly licensed and practicing attorneys having been duly admitted to practice before the supreme court of the State of Mississippi, and shall have the power and authority, under the direction and supervision of the district attorney, to perform all of the duties required of that office. Said legal assistants may be removed at the discr
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.
|
|