Legal Opinion

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

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 2017No. 2015-IA-01409-SCTPublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BEAM, JUSTICE,

FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. After a nearby ditch began to erode causing significant property damage and mold-related health issues, Plaintiffs John and Patsy O’Callaghan filed an inverse condemnation action under the Takings Clause of the Mississippi Constitution, requesting that the City of Tupelo compensate the couple for both personal injuries and significant property loss. The City of Tupelo presents this interlocutory appeal challenging the Lee County Court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment on the matter. The City of Tupelo presents four issues, all of which were…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. United States v. DickinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  4. Smith v. SandersMississippi Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. BerryMississippi Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. John T. Seyfarth, Jr. v. Adams County Board of SupervisorsMississippi Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Lacy Dodd v. Dr. Randall HinesMississippi Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Robert Hammons, Jr. v. C. Wade Navarre, IIMississippi Supreme Court · 2018
  4. American Optical Corporation v. Robert Lee Rankin, Jr.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2017
  5. American Optical Corporation v. Robert Lee Rankin, Jr.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2017

20 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