Oral arg. – Wednesday, Aug. 5, 2015

At 10:30, the Miss. Supreme Court will hear William Painter and John Chalk, Jr. v. Regions Insurance.

Painter, Chalk, Angie Strickland, and Jamie White  worked for Regions Insurance until July 2013 when they quit to work for Alliant.  Regions sued all four  claiming that they  breached contractual provisions precluding solicitation of customers they had served at Regions within the preceding two years.  Regions also contended that Painter and Chalk violated an agreement not to compete in the insurance business for a period of two years after termination of employment.  The trial court  ordered injunctive relief prohibiting Painter and Chalk from soliciting, accepting, or servicing customers they had serviced in the prior two years working for Regions but allowed them to continue servicing the clients they had already taken from Regions. Pursuant to the employment agreements, the parties submitted the issue of damages to an arbitrator.   The arbitrator ultimately ordered that Painter and Chalk  pay Regions twice the amount of any compensation they would receive in the next two years from customers they had served at Regions. The Circuit Court affirmed the award.  Painter and Chalk raise two main issues:  1) that the arbitrator violated the agreement by exercising equitable powers and 2) that after the close of evidence, the arbitrator contacted  Painter’s former lawyer.

Painter and Chalk brief

Regions  brief

Painter and Chalk rebuttal.

Watch the argument here.

At 1:30, the COA will hear Charles Greg Davis v. State. 

In this case, former Southhaven mayor Davis is appealing a judgment tin favor of the State  which sought reimbursement for monies Davis was alleged to have spent on personal items.

These are the issues as set forth by Davis.

1. Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis should repay $90,579.09 in tourism funds under Nichols v. Patterson and Mississippi Code Annotated section 31-7-57.

2.  Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis should repay $25,269.52 for travel expenses on his personal credit card.

3.  Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis should repay for his counseling at psychological counseling services.

4.  Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis should repay $5,951.96 for expenses on the city’s credit card.

5. Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis should repay his expenses for mileage reimbursement.

6. Whether the chancery court erred by finding that Davis’s counterclaims were without merit.

Davis brief.

State’s brief. 

Davis rebuttal brief. 

Watch the argument here. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s