Henry v. Moore

11 Citing cases

  1. Ward v. Cranford

    365 So. 3d 308 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    We will not disturb a chancellor's findings of fact unless they are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous or the chancellor applied the wrong legal standard. Henry v. Moore , 9 So. 3d 1146, 1152 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied , 12 So. 3d 531 (Miss. 2009). However, we review issues of law de novo.

  2. Gray v. Johnson

    382 So. 3d 545 (Miss. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    In weighing the evidence, however, we must defer to the trial court’s understanding of the facte. Id. at (¶20) (citing Henry v. Moore, 9 So. 3d 1146, 1152 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)). If the trial court’s interpretation of these facts is neither clearly erroneous nor manifest error, we are unable to second-guess the conclusion the trial court reached.

  3. Loblolly Props. v. Le Papillon Homeowner's Ass'n

    392 So. 3d 1191 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)

    "Any ambiguities in [a] contract will be construed against the party who drafted it." Henry v. Moore, 9 So. 3d 1146, 1153 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). II. Whether the covenants and restrictions were extinguished upon foreclosure of the First State mortgage.

  4. Loblolly Props. v. Le Papillon Homeowner's Ass'n

    No. 2021-CA-00767-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    "Any ambiguities in [a] contract will be construed against the party who drafted it." Henry v. Moore, 9 So.3d 1146, 1153 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). II. Whether the covenants and restrictions were extinguished upon foreclosure of the First State mortgage.

  5. Britt v. Orrison

    323 So. 3d 1135 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Hicks v. N. Am. Co. for Life & Health Ins. , 47 So. 3d 181, 189 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Henry v. Moore , 9 So. 3d 1146, 1152-53 (¶¶16-17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ). ¶42.

  6. Chapel Hill, LLC v. SoilTech Consultants, Inc.

    112 So. 3d 1097 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ 10. “Questions concerning construction of contracts are questions of law.” Henry v. Moore, 9 So.3d 1146, 1152 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Parkerson v. Smith, 817 So.2d 529, 532 (¶ 7) (Miss.2002)). Contract interpretation is a three-step process:

  7. Storey v. Williamson

    101 So. 3d 662 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    In the present case, the circuit judge's order reflects no determination that the term “buy,” as used in the agreement, was ambiguous or unclear. See Henry v. Moore, 9 So.3d 1146, 1152 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) ( “Contract construction and interpretation requires that the court first consider whether the contract is ambiguous.... [I]f the contract is unambiguous, this Court must accept the plain meaning of a contract as the intent of the parties.”). Further, the circuit judge found that since Storey was in negotiations to lease another location, Storey had not actually purchased, nor yet leased, a new pharmacy location; therefore, Storey had not breached the agreement.

  8. Storey v. Williamson

    NO. 2010-CA-02038-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2012)

    In the present case, the circuit judge's order reflects no determination that the term "buy," as used in the agreement, was ambiguous or unclear. See Henry v. Moore, 9 So. 3d 1146, 1152 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ("Contract construction and interpretation requires that the court first consider whether the contract is ambiguous. . . . [I]f the contract is unambiguous, this Court must accept the plain meaning of a contract as the intent of the parties."). Further, the circuit judge found that since Storey was in negotiations to lease another location, Storey had not actually purchased, nor yet leased, a new pharmacy location; therefore, Storey had not breached the agreement.

  9. Aegler v. Gambrell

    61 So. 3d 238 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    "Questions concerning construction of contracts are questions of law." Henry v. Moore, 9 So.3d 1146, 1152-53 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2008) (citing Parkerson v. Smith, 817 So.2d 529, 532 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2002)).

  10. Hicks v. North Amn. Co.

    2008 CA 1364 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim where there was no record of any special circumstances of a "significant professional or fiduciary relationship" with the agent outside of buying insurance from him

    We note that; this projection statement is relevant, however, for purposes of notice, and discovery of alleged fraud. In determining whether a contract is ambiguous, courts should consider the contract as a whole, and extrinsic evidence should only be considered upon a finding that the contract is ambiguous. Henry v. Moore, 9 So.3d 1146, 1152-53 (¶¶ 16-17) (Miss.Ct. App. 2008). ¶ 30.