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
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 rebuttal brief.
Watch the argument here.