William Colbert Keady

This case involved a claim for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses by plaintiffs who prevailed in a voting rights lawsuit against the City of Indianola and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The underlying dispute concerned the city's annexations, compliance with Voting Rights Act preclearance requirements, and the establishment of municipal election boundaries, which the plaintiffs challenged to protect minority voting rights; the court had previously ruled in plaintiffs' favor on the merits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendants did not contest the award of fees but argued that the requested amounts—$337,689 in fees for seven attorneys and over $37,000 in expenses—were excessive. After applying the Johnson factors to assess reasonableness, including time expended, results obtained, and counsel's experience, the court awarded a lodestar fee of $159,575 and $32,164.37 in recoverable expenses.

electionscivil rights

This case involves the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service petitioning the court to approve a new performance evaluation instrument (PEI) and procedure for use in determining merit pay increases and promotions for professional employees, following earlier litigation that invalidated a prior racially discriminatory evaluation form. The plaintiff class of black MCES professional employees opposed approval of the PEI. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that the PEI was developed through extensive job analysis and interviews in accordance with EEOC guidelines, is objective with defined scoring procedures, and is nondiscriminatory because score differences between racial groups were attributable to education and experience rather than race. The court therefore approved the PEI as a valid additional factor for pay and promotion decisions at county and district levels.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved two black employees of the Mississippi Department of Corrections who sued the agency and its commissioner, alleging racial discrimination in promotion decisions under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and § 1983. Plaintiff Oliver Jones was denied a lieutenant position because he had not yet met the required 1.5 years of experience as a sergeant, while plaintiff John Wilchie challenged the use of an unvalidated oral interview that produced a statistically significant racial disparity in selections. The court dismissed Jones's claims, finding he failed to meet the uniformly applied minimum qualifications and showed no evidence of intentional discrimination. It ruled for Wilchie on his disparate-impact claim, awarding back pay and declaratory relief that the interview process was invalid, but denied reinstatement or broader injunctive relief.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a black band director suing the Oxford Municipal School District and its officials under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, alleging racial discrimination led to the non-renewal of his contract as high school band director after desegregation. The court ruled for the defendants, denying the plaintiff's claims for back pay, reinstatement, and other relief, and also denying the defendants' request for attorney fees. It found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of disparate treatment but that the defendants articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons—such as declining student participation in the band, poor contest ratings, and issues with organization and discipline—which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. The same analysis applied to bar recovery under the parallel civil rights statutes.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves The Dow Chemical Company suing Halliburton Company and Mississippi Power & Light Company for patent infringement related to chemical processes for cleaning scale from utility boiler tubes. The court determined that certain claims in the Lesinski and Harriman patents were valid, enforceable, and infringed by the defendants, while claims in the Teumac patent were invalid and unenforceable. The reasoning centered on an evidentiary hearing and review of the patents' validity and the defendants' use of similar cleaning methods, leading to findings of infringement on specific claims and dismissal of others. The court awarded damages and issued an injunction against further infringement.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned a challenge by black voters (the Brooks plaintiffs) to Mississippi's 1981 legislative congressional redistricting plan and the preexisting 1972 plan, brought under section 5 and amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as well as the one-person, one-vote principle of the Constitution. After two evidentiary hearings and appeals, the three-judge court invalidated the plans for diluting black voting strength and ordered into effect a new interim plan creating a Delta district with a 58.3% black population. In the present memorandum opinion the court considers the prevailing plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 1973l(e), together with counter-motions by the Republican defendants seeking their own post-judgment expenses and Rule 11 sanctions.

electionscivil rights

This case involved plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after prevailing in a § 1983 civil rights action that blocked enforcement of a state court judgment against a boycott and picketing of Mississippi merchants. The defendants raised objections including untimeliness of the motion, lack of state action supporting the underlying § 1983 claim, and that the action was not pending when § 1988 took effect, while also disputing the amount requested. The court rejected the timeliness challenge, noting the motion was filed within 30 days of its final dismissal order per local rules and caused no prejudice. It further held that the state action issue had already been conclusively resolved against defendants in prior appeals. The opinion details the lengthy procedural history spanning state and federal courts from the 1960s through 1984.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

This case concerns black residents of Greenwood, Mississippi, who challenged the city's at-large commission form of government, alleging it unlawfully diluted minority voting strength under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended in 1982. On remand from the Fifth Circuit for consideration under the new "results" test, the district court reviewed a stipulated record showing racially polarized voting, a history of official discrimination, socioeconomic disparities affecting black residents' participation, and minimal election of black candidates. The court applied the totality-of-circumstances factors from the Senate Report, including the extent of racial polarization, effects of past discrimination, and lack of equal access to the political process. It determined that the at-large system violated amended Section 2 because black voters had less opportunity than others to participate and elect representatives of their choice.

electionscivil rights

The case involves black plaintiffs who are members of Delta Electric Power Association suing the cooperative and its officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VI, alleging racial discrimination that prevented meaningful participation in board elections and resulted in disparate treatment regarding service cutoffs, reconnections, rates, and street-light policies. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the disparate services claims and to dismiss the Title VI claims for lack of standing. The court granted partial summary judgment to defendants on the services allegations, reasoning that the named plaintiffs' depositions and affidavits failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact because most plaintiffs admitted no knowledge of discrimination in services, and the specific instances cited lacked evidence of racially disparate treatment compared to white members. The court also dismissed the Title VI claims for lack of standing but did not address the election-related § 1981 claims.

civil rightsprocedure

In this § 1983 case, plaintiff Debra Lomax alleged that private defendants planted illegal drugs in her apartment and reported their location to the sheriff as confidential informants, resulting in her arrest and prosecution for drug possession. The court considered defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, focusing on whether the private parties acted under color of state law. The court dismissed the action, holding that no claim was stated under § 1983 because the defendants' alleged misuse of state criminal processes did not satisfy the state-action requirement. Relying on Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., the court explained that private misuse of lawful state procedures, without any allegation that the procedures themselves were unconstitutional or that state officials knowingly colluded in the scheme, does not make the private actors state actors. Since the sheriff's office conducted an independent investigation and cleared the plaintiff, the tort claims remained solely under state law.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This interpleader action was brought by Jesco, Inc., as general contractor, to resolve competing claims to $156,848.61 it owed Great Dominion Corp. for materials supplied on a Mississippi construction project; the claimants included Great Dominion's suppliers (Federal Pipe, Jeffreys Steel, and East Coast Steel) and its secured creditor, Branch Banking and Trust Co. The court granted summary judgment to Branch on the interpleaded funds, holding that Branch held a properly perfected security interest under North Carolina law (the location of the debtor, Great Dominion) pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 75-9-103(3)(b), while Mississippi's materialmen's lien statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181, did not apply because the suppliers were subcontractors of a subcontractor. The court denied summary judgment to either party on Branch's counterclaim against Jesco for payments made after notice of the security interest, finding disputed issues of material fact regarding notice and timing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a motion for the recusal of District Judge Keady in the ongoing litigation between Limeco, Inc. and the Division of Lime. The defendants sought the judge's disqualification based on his 1942 vote as a state representative against a bill establishing state-operated limestone crushing plants. The court decided to grant the motion and recuse itself, reasoning that the historical vote could create an appearance of partiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455, even without any current recollection of the event.

procedure

This diversity case arose from a 1981 truck collision in Mississippi that killed three children, with plaintiffs suing the driver Alton and his employer Atlas Carriers under respondeat superior and negligent entrustment theories. The employer admitted the driver was acting within the scope of employment at the time, and the court addressed Atlas's motion for partial summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claims. The court granted the motion, holding that under Mississippi law the negligent entrustment claim was unnecessary once vicarious liability was conceded. The core reasoning, drawn from Nehi Bottling Co. v. Jefferson and Hood v. Dealers Transport Co., was that the employer's liability depended only on the driver's negligence, so evidence of prior violations would be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and punitive damages could still be pursued under the admitted theory.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a diversity action by the Cole family against truck driver Troy Alton, Atlas Carriers, Inc., and four individual Arkansas residents (officers, directors, and shareholders of Atlas) for wrongful death of the Coles' children and personal injuries to Etta Mae Cole arising from a 1981 truck collision in Mississippi. The court addressed a motion by the four individuals to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient process, as they had no direct contacts with Mississippi. The court dismissed the claims against the four individuals. It reasoned that the Mississippi long-arm statute and constitutional due process standards were not satisfied because the individuals' only connection to the forum derived from their roles in a foreign corporation whose charter was temporarily forfeited for unpaid taxes (unknown to them at the time), and they had not purposefully availed themselves of the forum in their personal capacities.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this case, the United States sought foreclosure and possession of the defendants' rural residential property after they defaulted on a Farmers Home Administration loan under the Housing Act of 1949. The defendants argued they were entitled to consideration for refinancing their FmHA debt under 42 U.S.C. § 1471(a) before any foreclosure could proceed. The court held that the Department of Agriculture regulation at 7 C.F.R. § 1944.22(a), which flatly prohibited refinancing of FmHA debts, was invalid because it conflicted with the statute and its legislative history. The core reasoning was that Congress used the term "authorized" to impose an imperative duty on the Secretary to permit refinancing in specified circumstances where loss of the home was likely, and the regulation's complete bar on FmHA debt refinancing could not stand. The court ruled that the borrowers must be considered for refinancing under appropriate standards before foreclosure could occur.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

In this admiralty case, plaintiff Jeffrie Scott Reynolds sued his employer and related companies for personal injuries sustained while working as a seaman, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law for maintenance and cure plus unseaworthiness. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were time-barred because the Mississippi federal suit was filed more than three years after the June 1979 injury, following dismissal of an earlier Texas federal suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, holding that the Jones Act statute of limitations was tolled under precedents like Burnett v. New York Central Railroad Co. and Platoro Limited, Inc. v. Unidentified Remains of A Vessel because the original timely filing demonstrated diligence despite the jurisdictional error. For the general maritime claims, the court applied the doctrine of laches rather than a fixed limitations period and found no inexcusable delay or prejudice to the defendants given the shared factual basis and prompt follow-up filings.

proceduretorts & liability

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, plaintiff Robert Stanley Williams, a federal employee temporarily detailed to the Corps of Engineers, alleged that fellow employees unlawfully broke into his locked desk and seized his personal papers and cash, causing him mental and emotional distress through trespass and invasion of privacy. The United States moved to dismiss or stay the action, contending that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from federal employment. The court found a substantial question whether FECA covers intentional torts by coworkers that result in emotional harm and therefore granted the motion to hold the case in abeyance, directing the plaintiff to submit a claim to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs for an initial coverage determination before any FTCA suit may proceed.

labor & employmentfederal powertorts & liability

In this diversity case, plaintiff Billy Canipe, a Tennessee worker, sued NATLSCO, an Illinois safety consulting firm, for severe arm injuries sustained while cleaning a flake roll machine at the KraftHumko plant, alleging negligence under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A and rights as a third-party beneficiary of NATLSCO’s contract with Kraft. The court first determined that Tennessee law governed both the tort and contract claims because the injury and relevant events occurred in Tennessee. It then held that Tennessee had not adopted § 324A, precluding recovery on the tort theory, and that Canipe was merely an incidental beneficiary of the contract rather than an intended one, so he had no enforceable rights under it. Finding no genuine issues of material fact, the court granted NATLSCO’s motion for summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act involved Baldwin Piano & Organ Company seeking to vacate arbitration awards interpreting its collective bargaining agreement with the International Chemical Workers Union regarding an absentee policy and employee seniority rights during layoffs, while the Union sought enforcement of those awards. The district court granted summary judgment to the Union, enforcing the awards after finding that the arbitrators' interpretations of the Management's Rights Clause, just cause provisions, and related contract terms drew their essence from the agreement and did not exceed the arbitrators' authority. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the Union, concluding that Baldwin's challenge was unjustified because it amounted to disagreement with the merits of the arbitrators' contract constructions rather than a bona fide question of arbitrability. The opinion analyzed multiple prior arbitration rulings on the absentee policy's interaction with disciplinary and seniority rules, as well as the timeliness of certain grievances.

labor & employment

In this products liability case, pilot John Cochran sued Rockwell International and related companies after the Aero Thrush Commander aircraft he was flying suffered a sudden engine power loss due to foreign objects (masking tape and a plastic thimble) left in the fuel header tank during manufacturing, forcing an emergency landing. The court found that the aircraft contained a manufacturing defect that made it unreasonably dangerous and that the defect existed when the plane was sold, supporting claims under strict liability and warranty. However, after reviewing extensive evidence including medical testimony, the court concluded that Cochran failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered any personal injury from the landing itself, as opposed to other possible causes, and that any finding of injury would rest on speculation. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendants, noting that Mississippi law does not allow recovery based on surmise or conjecture.

torts & liability