Plaintiff entered into a "Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages," approved by the EEOC, to resolve her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service. She later filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breached of that Agreement. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because the Agreement was a consent decree, not a contract. In the federal system, when the United States is the defendant, whether the issue is enforcement of a court decree by the issuing forum or enforcement of a settlement contract in a separate suit determines which court can hear the case. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the "dispute is yet another example of the wastefulness of litigation over where to litigate." Consent decrees and settlement agreements are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a settlement agreement, even one embodied in a decree, is a contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act.

Roxco, Ltd., was hired as the general contractor for several public-construction projects for the State of Mississippi, including four building projects at the University of Mississippi, Jackson State University, and Alcorn State University. State law requires that a certain percentage of the cost of construction be retained to ensure completion. However, Mississippi Code Section 31-5-15 (Rev. 2010) allows the contractor to access that retainage by depositing with the State other acceptable security. Pursuant to Section 31-5-15, Roxco substituted securities valued at $1,055,000, deposited in a safekeeping account at Trustmark National Bank. Upon being notified of Roxco's default, the State instructed Trustmark to transfer the funds from the treasury bills into the state treasury account. By letter, Roxco directed Trustmark not to transfer the funds from the treasury bills to the State's account. Notwithstanding Roxco's letter, Trustmark deposited the funds into the State's account. Roxco filed suit against Trustmark for breach of contract and conversion. Trustmark argued that Section 31-5-15 permitted the release of the funds in the safekeeping account. A jury found in favor of Roxco and awarded $3,720,000 in damages. Aggrieved, Trustmark appealed. Finding that the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

After Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast in August 2005, W. C. Fore entered into a contract with Harrison County, Mississippi, to remove the large amount of debris that was left behind. The Mississippi State Tax Commission (MSTC) then assessed a fee of $1.00 per ton of debris removed. Fore appealed the assessment to the MSTC Board of Review, claiming that the fee did not apply to emergency waste removal. The Board of Review upheld the assessment. Fore appealed the Board of Review’s decision to the MSTC Full Commission, which also affirmed the assessment. Fore then appealed to the Harrison County Chancery Court, First Judicial District. The chancery court upheld the assessment, and Fore appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding that the MSTC's and chancery court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that there was no misapprehension of the law, the Supreme Court affirmed.

As a team building exercise, Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Morrison's employer wanted him and his coworkers to participate in a program at Defendant-Respondent Northwest Nazarene University that included a climbing wall activity. Several days prior to doing so, Plaintiff's employer required him to sign an agreement prepared by the University holding it harmless from any loss or damage he might incur due to the University's negligence or that of its employees. This appeal arose from the district court's grant of summary judgment that held Plaintiff's action for personal injuries suffered when he fell from the climbing wall was barred by the hold harmless agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claim because he was barred by the hold harmless agreement.

This appeal arose from a decade-long fight over title to a piece of real property. Juan Cuevas allegedly agreed to sell the property to Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant Bernardino Barraza in 2001. However, after Barraza failed to pay the purchase price, Juan filed a quiet title action against Barraza. Barraza defaulted. While Barraza was seeking to set aside the default, Juan quitclaimed the property to his relative, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent Wilfrido Cuevas. Meanwhile, Barraza was successful in setting aside the default on appeal. On remand, Juan defaulted and the district court quieted title in Barraza. Wilfrido then filed the present quiet title action against Barraza, in which the district court found the default judgment against Juan void and quieted title in Wilfrido. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the default judgment against Juan is void, but vacated the summary judgment quieting title in Wilfrido as against Barraza.

Real estate purchasers Thomas and Vicki Stevenson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment that dismissed their unjust enrichment claim against Windermere Capital Group (Windermere), broker to seller 323 Jefferson, LLC (Jefferson). The Stevensons desired to purchase a condominium from Jefferson, and the parties executed a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (REPSA) for that purpose. Pursuant to the REPSA, the Stevensons deposited $38,000 earnest money with Jefferson’s broker, Windermere. Upon the Stevensons' written authorization, Windermere transferred the funds to Jefferson. Jefferson then paid Windermere a partial commission pursuant to an Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement which obligated Jefferson to pay Windermere a commission whenever a ready, willing, and able purchaser was procured. Jefferson decided not to sell the condominium to the Stevensons and notified them that it was terminating the REPSA. The REPSA specified remedies upon default by either of the parties to the agreement. In the event that Jefferson failed to comply with any term of the agreement, the Stevensons were entitled to their deposit plus interest. Despite this unambiguous provision, Jefferson failed to return the deposit. The Stevensons filed suit against both Jefferson and Windermere. Their complaint alleged that Jefferson breached the REPSA and also advanced a claim of unjust enrichment against both Jefferson and Windermere. The Stevensons also asserted that the REPSA was unenforceable because it did not contain an adequate legal description. Jefferson settled with the Stevensons, agreeing to refund the Stevensons' earnest money, less the commission paid to Windermere. Windermere answered and cross-claimed against Jefferson, alleging two counts of breach of contract, two counts of unjust enrichment and one count of fraud. Windermere later moved for summary judgment as to the Stevensons’ unjust enrichment claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion and affirmed the award of summary judgment to Windmere.

Michael Bryant, an owner and employee of Prime Cut Meat Market, assaulted another motorist, Francis Latanowich, in an apparent incident of road rage. Prime Cut and its employees were insured by a policy issued by The Travelers Indemnity Company. Latanowich and his wife sued Bryant and Prime Cut. Prime Cut successfully moved for summary judgment, and Bryant and the Latanowiches agreed to a settlement that included Bryant assigning all of his rights related to potential insurance coverage to the Latanowiches. Travelers later filed a complaint against Bryant and the Latanowiches seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify Bryant for claims arising from the altercation because Bryant was not an insured under its policy issued to Prime Cut for purposes of that conduct. The superior court concluded that the policy language did not cover the incident, and it granted Travelers's motion for summary judgment. The Latanowiches appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the unambiguous language of the policy, the court correctly concluded that Bryant's assault of Latanowich was not covered by the policy and properly entered summary judgment.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) informed Flexdar, Inc. that Flexdar would be liable for the costs of cleaning up trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination on a site where Flexdar previously had operations. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto), with whom Flexdar maintained general liability and umbrella insurance policies for the period when the contamination occurred, filed a declaratory judgment action, contending that coverage for the TCE contamination was excluded pursuant to a pollution exclusion in the policies. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Flexdar, concluding that the language of State Auto's pollution exclusion was ambiguous and therefore should be construed against State Auto and in favor of coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of the pollution exclusion at issue was ambiguous, and therefore, in accordance with precedent, the policies were construed in favor of coverage.

An employee of a concrete subcontractor was injured in a workplace accident during the construction of a stadium. The employee sought to recover damages for negligence from the project's construction manager by whom she was not employed but whom she contended had a legal duty of care for jobsite-employee safety. The trial court ruled in the employee's favor that the construction manager could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court, holding (1) the construction manager was not vicariously liable to the worker for any negligence of the subcontractor because the construction manager and subcontractor did not have the requisite relationship; and (2) the construction manager did not have, either by the terms of its contracts or by its actions, a legal duty of care for jobsite-employee safety, and therefore the construction manager could not be held liable to the employee for negligence. Remanded.

Abacus commenced this action against ADT and Diebold to recover damages under tort and contract theories for losses incurred during a burglary of the bank. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with one exception. The court concluded that Abacus had adequately stated a cause of action for breach of contract against ADT for its alleged losses other than losses allegedly sustained by its safe deposit box customers.