Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. Mary Bethanne Acey

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 2014No. 2013-IA-01291-SCTPublished

1Concurrence

COLEMAN, Justice,

specially concurring:

¶ 35. I concur with the majority. As I appreciate it, the question before the Court in the case sub judice is whether Entergy owed a legal duty of due care to the plaintiff, Mary Bethanne Acey. I agree with the majority that, upon application of the Entex factors, Entergy did not and that the case should be reversed. I write separately for two purposes. First, I think it worth the time to emphasize that the question of whether a legal duty of due care exists is one of law and not fact. That it presents a question of law matters in the summary judgment…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Lyle v. MladinichMississippi Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Rein v. Benchmark Const. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Summers v. St. Andrew's Episcopal School, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2000

5 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