Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Tupelo, Mississippi v. John Patterson (Pat) O'Callaghan

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 2017No. 2015-IA-01409-SCTPublished

1Dissent

KITCHENS, JUSTICE,

DISSENTING:

¶ 55. Because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the point at which John and Patsy O’Callaghan knew or should have known that the City of Tupe-lo’s drainage ditch had damaged their property, I would affirm the County Court of Lee County’s denial of summary judgment. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 56. A “cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury.” Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49(2) (Rev. 2012). In Angle v. Koppers, this Court interpreted Section 15-1-49(2) to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Smith v. SandersMississippi Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Caves v. YarbroughMississippi Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Weathers v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Angle v. Koppers, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2010
  5. City of Vicksburg v. HermanMississippi Supreme Court · 1894

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API