Comments on: More Solomon Osborne and other bafflements in the 6/18/09 Supreme Court decision list http://nmisscommentor.com/law/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/ A blog from the hills in North Mississippi Tue, 22 May 2012 17:50:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: NMC http://nmisscommentor.com/law/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/comment-page-1/#comment-5818 NMC Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:05:18 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/2009/06/18/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/#comment-5818 I've rewritten that sentence both to make it clearer and to fix the attribution. Thanks. I’ve rewritten that sentence both to make it clearer and to fix the attribution. Thanks.

]]> By: Cap'n Crunch http://nmisscommentor.com/law/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/comment-page-1/#comment-5816 Cap'n Crunch Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:35:13 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/2009/06/18/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/#comment-5816 <BLOCKQUOTE>If the best you can do, though, is the opening of Justice Dickinson’s dissent, you’re pretty pathetic</BLOCKQUOTE> Justice Kitchens wrote the dissent.

If the best you can do, though, is the opening of Justice Dickinson’s dissent, you’re pretty pathetic

Justice Kitchens wrote the dissent.

]]> By: Anderson http://nmisscommentor.com/law/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/comment-page-1/#comment-5784 Anderson Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:32:00 +0000 http://nmisscommentor.com/2009/06/18/more-solomon-osborne-and-other-bafflements-in-the-61809-supreme-court-decision-list/#comment-5784 <i>Justices Graves and Kitchens, concurring, tell the trial court that the defense has to move to compel before he can seek sanctions.</i> Four justices take this position in the present case, which makes for an interesting comparison w/ <a href="http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO55674.pdf" rel="nofollow">this week's COA op</a> that I noted, which says: <i>Moore makes a separate argument that it was reversible error because DRMC did not file a motion to compel prior to the trial court striking Dr. Sobel. However, our supreme court has stated that “parties who file appropriate interrogatories seeking expert information [do not] acquire the additional burden of filing a motion to compel, where they are provided an answer which promises supplementation.” Palmer, 904 So. 2d at 1090 (¶55). Thus, Moore’s contention that a motion to compel is a condition precedent to striking an expert for failure to be properly and timely designated is without merit.</i> Nothing about the case law adduced by Graves. Haven't got time right now to investigate how the Palmer case fits here, but that COA op is looking pretty cert-worthy right now. Justices Graves and Kitchens, concurring, tell the trial court that the defense has to move to compel before he can seek sanctions.

Four justices take this position in the present case, which makes for an interesting comparison w/ this week’s COA op that I noted, which says:

Moore makes a separate argument that it was reversible error because DRMC did not file a motion to compel prior to the trial court striking Dr. Sobel. However, our supreme court has stated that “parties who file appropriate interrogatories seeking expert information [do not] acquire the additional burden of filing a motion to compel, where they are provided an answer which promises supplementation.” Palmer, 904 So. 2d at 1090 (¶55). Thus, Moore’s contention that a motion to compel is a condition precedent to striking an expert for
failure to be properly and timely designated is without merit.

Nothing about the case law adduced by Graves. Haven’t got time right now to investigate how the Palmer case fits here, but that COA op is looking pretty cert-worthy right now.

]]>