Thomas v. Warden

13 Citing cases

  1. Arceo v. Tolliver

    2008 CA 224 (Miss. 2009)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that contents of notice must substantially comply with section 15-1-36's requirements

    ¶ 16. This Court repeatedly has applied the same standards of construction and application to the Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act as those applied to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"). See, e.g., Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135 (Miss. 2008)); Tolliver I, 949 So.2d at 696 (citing Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.

  2. Price v. Clark

    2007 CA 1671 (Miss. 2009)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that substantial compliance, not strict compliance, is the applicable standard for addressing whether the contents of a notice-of-claim letter complied with the MTCA

    Although some persons may agree that numerous statutes passed by the Legislature are without rational explanation and/or burdensome on the citizens they affect, it is not the prerogative of this Court to refuse enforcement of laws which it deems unwise. See Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008) ("[o]ur constitutional duty is to interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as we think it might have been more fairly written."). ¶ 96.

  3. Dunn v. State

    No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 14, 2018)   Cited 51 times

    But, as this Court has held before, Mississippi's constitutional right of access to its courts is not without bounds. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008) (discussing Miss. Const. art. 3, § 24). See also Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So. 3d 760, 765 (Miss.

  4. Herrington v. Promise Specialty Hosp

    665 F. Supp. 2d 708 (S.D. Miss. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    It was the ruling of the Court that the suit was filed prematurely.Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 847 n. 3 (Miss. 2008) (emphasis added).

  5. Nelson v. Baptist Memorial Hosp

    2009 CA 81 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for obstructing official business where defendant's “actions in calling her attorney, the therapist, and others” did not evidence that defendant “acted with the purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay” the officers

    ¶ 26. The Hospital contends that the supreme court decision of Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842 (Miss. 2008) supports its view that the failure to comply with the requirement causes the complaint to have no legal effect and, thus, does not toll the statute of limitations. The defendants also assert that the Price and Thomas decisions conflict.

  6. Smith v. James

    Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-097 HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2010)

    This subsection shall not be applicable with respect to any defendant whose name is unknown to the plaintiff at the time of filing the complaint and who is identified therein by a fictitious name.Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 849 (Miss. 2008) ( citing Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-36(15). Plaintiff responds to defendant's motion for summary judgment by contending that she will provide an expert witness to support her claims at trial.

  7. Archie v. Smith

    393 So. 3d 1010 (Miss. 2024)

    But it is clear that no absolute right of access to courts exists, only reasonable access and opportunity to be heard. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 846 (Miss. 2008). Furthermore, it is obvious that a right to open courts "does not mean that the office of the clerk must be physically open at all hours or that the filing of papers can be effected by leaving them in a closed or vacant office."

  8. Spann v. Wood

    269 So. 3d 10 (Miss. 2018)   Cited 8 times
    In Spann v. Wood, 269 So.3d 10 (Miss. 2018), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by several nurses employed at a nursing home, where pre-suit noticed was provided to their employer, but not to the nurses individually.

    2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842, 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the complaint."); Arceo v. Tolliver , 949 So.2d 691, 694 (Miss.

  9. Harrison County Commercial Lot, LLC v. H. Gordon Myrick, Inc.

    107 So. 3d 943 (Miss. 2013)   Cited 24 times

    The caselaw upon which HCCL relies addresses statutory, presuit notice requirements for medical-malpractice suits. SeeMiss.Code Ann. § 15–1–36 (Rev.2012); see also Thomas v. Warden, 999 So.2d 842, 845–47 (Miss.2008) (dismissing for failure to fulfill presuit notice requirement); and Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss.2009). Those cases are not applicable here.

  10. Waples v. Yi

    169 Wn. 2d 152 (Wash. 2010)   Cited 28 times
    Holding 90–day notice requirement in the same statute unconstitutional because it conflicts with the commencement requirement of CR 3 thereby conflicting with the judiciary's power to set court procedures.

    The Supreme Court of Mississippi, for example, upheld a 60-day medical malpractice notice requirement as consistent with the separation of powers under its state constitution. Thomas v. Warden, 999 So. 2d 842, 847 (Miss. 2008). In doing so, it distinguished legislatively enacted prerequisites to suit from legislatively enacted court procedures that affect case management after filing, approving of the former: