Teasley v. Buford

18 Citing cases

  1. Thompson v. Dung Thi Hoang Nguyen

    86 So. 3d 251 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    “It is the jury [that] determines the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses at trial[,] and it is the primary province of the jury to determine the amount of damages to award.” Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070, 1075 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Burge v. Spiers 856 So.2d 577, 580 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2003)). During the trial, Thompson's credibility was drawn into question because her testimony at trial and her deposition differed.

  2. Patterson v. Holleman

    2003 CA 1902 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    ¶ 20. The Pattersons rely on Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004), for their argument that they were entitled to restoration costs. Teasley involved a trespass to land that resulted in the destruction of a hillside, necessitating the construction of a retaining wall to prevent erosion of the landowner's property.

  3. Renfroe v. Berryhill

    2003 CA 1453 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that because the defendant "failed to object and … his actions at trial indicate[d] that he did recognize the entrance of the issue into the case, … the issue of [the plaintiff’s] employment status was tried by implied consent"

    Our general task in reviewing challenges to jury instructions calls us to view the instructions as a whole in order to determine whether the jury was adequately instructed as to the law applicable to the case. Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So.2d 732, 736 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2004); Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070, 1078 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). More specifically in this regard we have held:

  4. Marlow LLC v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv135-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 9, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    "'In the case of a trespass, punitive damages may be awarded if the proof shows that the trespass was willful, grossly negligent or wanton.'" Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125, 135 (¶ 29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Teasley v. Buford, 876 So. 2d 1070, 1078 (¶ 16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). "[A]ttorneys fees may be included as part of an award of punitive damages."

  5. Crowder v. Pittman

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv521-DPJ-JCS (S.D. Miss. Oct. 28, 2009)

    See Quinn v. President Broadwater Hotel, LLC, 963 So. 2d 1204, 1209 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) ("It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the jury is the trier of fact and `[d]etermines the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses at trial and it is the primary province of the jury to determine the amount of damages to award.'") (quoting Teasley v. Buford, 876 So. 2d 1070, 1075 (Miss. 2004)). B. Loss of Wage Earning Capacity

  6. Camp v. Stokes

    2008 CT 1076 (Miss. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    The case did not address the question of whether a successful defendant may invoke Section 95-5-10(3). Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070 (Miss.Ct. App. 2004).Id.

  7. Heckenberger v. Livingston Dev. Corp.

    282 So. 3d 1252 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "The trial court's decision regarding attorney's fees is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review." Teasley v. Buford , 876 So. 2d 1070, 1081 (¶27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). "Absent some statutory authority or contractual provision, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless punitive damages are also proper."

  8. Crowell v. Burchfield

    168 So. 3d 1052 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)

    We review a trial court's decision on a motion for an additur for abuse of discretion. Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070, 1075 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). “The party seeking the additur has the burden of proving his injuries, loss of income, and other damages.”

  9. Harper v. State

    102 So. 3d 1154 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 23 times
    In Harper v. State, 102 So.3d 1154, 1158 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2012), this Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to sever where the offenses against the two child-abuse victims were similar in nature, although occurring over a three-and-a-half-month period.

    We find the weight of the evidence against Harper was sufficient to outweigh any harm done by allowing the hearsay testimony. Although Harper's testimony contradicted the other witnesses, it is well settled that “[i]t is the jury who determines the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses at trial....” Teasley v. Buford, 876 So.2d 1070, 1075 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citation omitted). This issue is without merit.

  10. Harper v. State

    NO. 2010-KA-01979-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2012)

    Although Harper's testimony contradicted the other witnesses, it is well settled that "[i]t is the jury who determines the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses at trial . . . ." Teasley v. Buford, 876 So. 2d 1070, 1075 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (citation omitted). This issue is without merit.