Keen v. Simpson County

12 Citing cases

  1. Porter v. Farris

    328 F. App'x 286 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Applying Keen , 904 So.2d at 1161

    That Act provides that it shall be "the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental entity or its employee for acts or omissions which give rise to a suit." Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Miss.Ct. App. 2004) (quotation omitted). The Act provides an exemption from liability for claims arising out of acts or omissions of employees "of a governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of duties or activities relating to police or fire protection" unless "the employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury."

  2. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Oliver

    235 So. 3d 75 (Miss. 2017)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that malice-based tort claim could only be brought against a law-enforcement officer in his individual capacity

    The Mississippi Court of Appeals has held the MTCA applied to a malicious-prosecution claim against Simpson County and its sheriff. Keen v. Simpson Cty. , 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (finding Simpson County exempt from liability based on Mississippi Code Section 11–46–9(1)(c) ). And federal courts applying Mississippi law have gone both ways.

  3. McCornell v. City of Jackson

    489 F. Supp. 2d 605 (S.D. Miss. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Probable cause is determined based on "the facts as known when the arrest warrant is requested, not on facts that may be subsequently developed." Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Ellis v. State, 573 So.2d 724, 726 (Miss. 1990). Where probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit will not lie even if the defendant is later found not guilty.

  4. Moton v. City of Clarksdale

    No. 2022-CA-00216-SCT (Miss. Jul. 6, 2023)

    The Mississippi Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental entity for lawsuits seeking money damages arising out of tortious actions. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1 to -7 (Rev. 2019); Keen v. Simpson Cnty. 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (¶ 22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Oliver, 904 So.2d 1157 (Miss. 2017); Garretson v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 156 So.3d 241, 247 (¶ 20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) ("We find Section 11-46-7 unambiguous-any claim for monetary damages arising out of the State's tortious acts must be brought under the Tort Claims Act.").

  5. Springfield v. Members 1st Cmty. Fed. Credit Union

    106 So. 3d 826 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 4 times
    In Springfield, the court held that the plaintiff's complaint stated a claim for malicious prosecution, and that a prima facie case of probable cause would never exist because the plaintiff was merely indicted and not convicted.

    The absence of probable cause is an essential element of both causes of action. ‘Where probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution will not lie....’ Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).Id. at *4.

  6. Springfield v. Members 1st Cmty. Fed. Credit Union

    NO. 2010-CA-00359-COA (Miss. Ct. App. May. 29, 2012)

    The absence of probable cause is an essential element of both causes of action. 'Where probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution will not lie . . . .' Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So. 2d 1157, 1161 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).Id. at *4.

  7. Raimey v. Gipson

    3:23-CV-458-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Sep. 27, 2024)

    (“Where probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit will not lie even if the defendant is later found not guilty.”) (citing Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). But drawing all reasonable inferences in Raimey's favor, as the Court is obligated to do at this stage

  8. Atwood v. Tullos

    312 F. Supp. 3d 553 (S.D. Miss. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted-indeed, for every suspect released."); see also Morris v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 754 (5th Cir. 2001) ("Whether the crime actually occurred or whether a suspect is eventually convicted is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis. The inquiry focuses only on what the officer could have reasonably believed at the time based on the relevant law, as well as the facts supplied to him by the eyewitness."); Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (so long as probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution will not lie even when the defendant is subsequently tried and found "not guilty"). Mitchell v. City of Jackson, Miss., 481 F.Supp.2d 586, 589–90 (S.D. Miss. 2006), aff'd sub nom.

  9. Sullivan v. Boyd Tunica, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV016-B-A (N.D. Miss. Feb. 16, 2007)   Cited 8 times
    In Sullivan, the district court found the malicious prosecution claim failed because "if facts supporting an arrest are placed before an independent intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, the intermediary's decision breaks the chain of causation."

    "Where probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution will not lie. . . ." Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So. 2d 1157, 1161 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). The Taylor court noted that "the chain of causation is broken only where all the facts are presented to the grand jury or magistrate and the malicious motive of the officer does not lead him to withhold any relevant information."

  10. Mitchell v. City of Jackson, Mississippi

    481 F. Supp. 2d 586 (S.D. Miss. 2006)   Cited 8 times
    Granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to individual capacity claims under § 1983

    If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted-indeed, for every suspect released."); see also Morris v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 754 (5th Cir. 2001) ("Whether the crime actually occurred or whether a suspect is eventually convicted is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis. The inquiry focuses only on what the officer could have reasonably believed at the time based on the relevant law, as well as the facts supplied to him by the eyewitness."); Keen v. Simpson County, 904 So. 2d 1157, 1161 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (so long as probable cause exists for an arrest, a suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution will not lie even when the defendant is subsequently tried and found "not guilty"). Thus, "[i]n making a determination of probable cause, [the court] do[es] not require a police officer to be perfect, nor do[es] [it] want him always to err on the side of caution out of the fear of being sued."