Tatum v. Barrentine

30 Citing cases

  1. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Hawkins

    2001 CA 1124 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's vague statements concerning visits to a psychiatrist could not support damages for emotional distress

    The trial court noted while determining which jury instructions would be allowed during the punitive damages phase that Plaintiffs would not be allowed to submit an instruction that stated ICR could be liable for punitive damages because of a failure to have a corporate policy as "there [was] no evidence and there is no law that says they have to have a corporate policy." The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion.Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing ThompsonMach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). The information regarding corporate policy could have been relevant to the question of punitive damages, in that a corporate policy not to cut back trees might warrant such damages.

  2. Windmon v. Marshall

    2004 CA 528 (Miss. 2006)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that insurer had an arguable basis for denying coverage based on a negligent investigation

    ¶ 11. "The decision to grant or set aside a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 227 (Miss. 2001) (citing Williams v. Kilgore, 618 So.2d 51, 55 (Miss. 1992)).

  3. Partain v. Sta-Home Health Agency

    2003 CA 804 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 17. Partain argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of David Herrington's pregnancy related comments. The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). ¶ 18.

  4. McIntyre v. Calsonic Kansei N. Am., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-886-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. Mar. 6, 2019)

    Defendant Nissan has filed a Motion in Limine to exclude at trial the deposition testimony of Terrin Courtney related to the corporate relationship between Nissan and Calsonic. A motion in limine "should be granted only when the trial court finds two factors are present: "(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So. 2d 223, 228 (Miss. 2001). At this stage, the court is of the opinion that the statements by Terrin Courtney would likely be admissible at trial; however, one of the reasons for deferring evidentiary rulings until trial is "so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice can be resolved in proper context."

  5. Tucker v. Williams

    198 So. 3d 299 (Miss. 2016)   Cited 15 times
    In Tucker, the Court concluded that the denial of the motion for reconsideration was not a final judgment because "[a] clerk's entry of default is an ‘interlocutory step that is taken under Rule 55(a) in anticipation of a final judgment by default under Rule 55(b).’ "

    The trial court should exercise its discretion within the strictures of Rules 55(c) and 60(b), along with the criteria set forth by this Court. Id. This Court reviews the trial court's grant or denial of a motion to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment for abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 227 (Miss.2001). But if the trial court's decision was based on an error of law, then we will reverse.

  6. Nunnally v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

    2001 CA 1079 (Miss. 2004)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a separate negligence instruction on the issue of defective design in a case in which the jury was instructed in accordance with the MPLA

    ¶ 27. Motions in limine are properly granted "only when the trial court finds two factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 228 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss. 1988)).

  7. Townsend v. State

    95 KA 234 (Miss. 2003)   Cited 19 times

    ¶ 18. "Admission of testimony is subject only to an abuse of discretion review." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). ¶ 19.

  8. Jones v. State

    2001 KA 819 (Miss. 2003)   Cited 53 times

    "Admission of testimony is subject only to an abuse of discretion review." Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v.Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). Evidentiary rulings are within the broaddiscretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 784 (Miss.

  9. Mitchell v. Nelson

    830 So. 2d 635 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    In Mitchell homeowners sued the previous sellers and sellers argued that the claim fell under Rule 60(b)(3) newly discovered evidence not the Rule 60(b)(6) catch all exception. Mitchell, 830 So.2d at 638.

    Additionally, the elements of fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001). As a matter of law, the Mitchells could not do so.

  10. Yoste v. Wal-Mart Stores

    2000 CA 732 (Miss. 2002)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that prior incidents were not admissible to prove causation when the only similarity between those incidents and plaintiff's fall was that they all happened in a Walmart parking lot but were not in close proximity to the plaintiff's fall

    Both Banes's fall and Thomas's fall occurred approximately 60-80 feet from where Yoste fell. Yoste argues that this evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing that Wal-Mart had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition in its parking lot. ¶ 7. The standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 230 (Miss. 2001) (citing Thompson Mach. Commerce Corp. v. Wallace, 687 So.2d 149, 152 (Miss. 1997)). The trial court held that the proferred testimony was inadmissible for the purpose of showing that Wal-Mart had notice of the allegedly hazardous condition in its parking lot.