Earwood v. Reeves

38 Citing cases

  1. Young v. Smith

    2010 CA 79 (Miss. 2011)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming the denial of a Rule 36(b) motion filed “nearly seven-and-one-half years after the admissions were deemed admitted”

    Sawyer v. Hannan, 556 So.2d 696 (Miss. 1990). If the plaintiff fails to communicate to the trial court a reason for the delay or a belief that they should have been allowed to delay their response, and the court can find no compelling circumstances to justify allowing an untimely reply to avoid admissions, the [c]ourt does not abuse its discretion in not allowing the admissions to be withdrawn. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001). Requests are deemed admitted if the answers or objections are not served within 30 days of service.

  2. Williamson v. Edmonds

    2003 IA 1099 (Miss. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Adopting procedure for in camera inspection and ordering trial court to allow a reasonable time for proponent of privilege to inspect documents before they were released to party opposite

    See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So.2d 382, 387 (Miss. 2001); Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 513 (Miss. 2001); Forrest County Gen. Hosp. v. Conway, 700 So.2d 324, 325 (Miss. 1997).

  3. Braswell v. T T Welding, Inc.

    883 So. 2d 82 (Miss. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 2. The circuit court affirmed the county court's decision and found that the facts were analogous to Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2001), and that venue was proper in either Pike County or Jones County. Braswell appeals to this Court the decision of the circuit court affirming the county court. For the following reasons, this Court affirms. FACTS

  4. DeBlanc v. Stancil

    1999 CT 1074 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 38 times
    Emphasizing the use of the term "may" in Rule 36(b)

    ¶ 11. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment based upon failure to timely respond to a request for admissions. The decision of the trial court in regards discovery is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001). The review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.

  5. Dillon v. Pico, Inc.

    239 So. 3d 527 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    " Young , 67 So.3d at 739 (¶ 14). "The permissive language of [ Rule 36(b) ] respecting the trial court's duties clearly provides that relief from the definite time periods is only available at the trial court's discretion." Earwood v. Reeves , 798 So.2d 508, 515 (¶ 22) (Miss. 2001). Thus, the Dillons' argument that Rule 36(b) contains a mandatory two-pronged test is without merit.

  6. Langley v. Miles

    956 So. 2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    In Langley, 956 So.2d at 971 (¶ 3), also a medical malpractice case, the defendants served the plaintiff with requests for admissions on May 16, 2003. There was no further activity in the case until September 11, 2003, when the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the plaintiff's failure to respond to their requests.

    On review of a trial court's denial of a Rule 36(b) motion, we are mindful that matters concerning discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2001). This Court will not overturn a discovery order absent an abuse of discretion.

  7. In re Marriage of Leverock Hamby

    2008 CA 93 (Miss. 2009)   Cited 62 times
    Finding desertion based on a father's voluntary “complete and total absence of any contact or support for two and a half years of three-year-old [son's] young life”—the father did not “see, talk, or otherwise visit his son,” nor did he provide any financial assistance or ever send a birthday or Christmas card or gift

    Scoggins v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Desoto, 967 So.2d 646, 648 (Miss. 2007) (quoting Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (Miss. 2001)). ¶ 27.

  8. Scoggins v. Baptist Memorial Hosp

    2006 CA 2004 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 25 times
    Holding " certain amount of discretion is vested in the trial judge with respect to whether he or she will take matters as admitted"

    "Matters of discovery are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and discovery orders will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion." Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001) ( citing Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co., 607 So.2d 1232, 1235 (Miss. 1992)).

  9. Prime Rx, LLC v. McKendree, Inc.

    2004 CA 1761 (Miss. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    DISCUSSION ¶ 7. A trial court's decisions concerning discovery matters are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (citing Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 514 (Miss. 2001)). However, a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.

  10. Sanford v. Dudley

    196 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    In Sanford v. Dudley, 196 So.3d 1106, 1115 (¶ 27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), a case similar to one before us, we reversed the circuit court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to withdraw admissions.

    The Supreme Court has emphasized that there is no “benevolent gratuity [in] the administration of Rule 36.... Rule 36 is to be enforced according to its terms. ” Id. at 799 (¶ 14) (quoting Educ. Placement Servs. v. Wilson, 487 So.2d 1316, 1318 (Miss.1986) ). “[R]ules are promulgated for a purpose,” and litigants know or should know “the severe consequences of failing to timely respond” to requests for admission under Rule 36. Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 516 (¶ 26) (Miss.2001). ¶ 13.