Thursday, October 27, 2011

Secret case at MSSC?

We noted a while back the appalling facts in the case of a little girl whom the Covington County schools allowed, repeatedly, to be signed out by an unauthorized person who sexually molested her and then returned her to school to await his next visit -- or so the plaintiffs allege.

The state-court case brought by the parents is the one that popped up on the hand-downs list today:

Covington County School District, by and Through its Board of Education and its President, Andrew Keys and its Superintendent of Education, I.S. Sanford, Jr.; Covington County Superintendent of Education I.S. Sanford, Jr., officially and in his individual capacity; Covington County Board of Education, by and through its president, Andrew Keys; Andrew Keys, officially and in his individual capacity; Tommy Keys v. Jane Doe, a Minor, By and Through Her Next Friends, Daniel Magee and Geneva Magee; Covington Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2008-294C; Ruling Date: 08/13/2010; Ruling Judge: Frank Vollor; Disposition: Having considered the record, the parties' briefs, and oral argument in this interlocutory appeal, the en banc Court concludes that the circuit court's judgment is affirmed to the extent that it denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment; that the circuit court's judgment is vacated in all other respects; that this case is remanded to the circuit court; and the appellants shall bear the costs of this appeal. King, J., not participating. Waller, C.J., for the Court. Order entered.
We've bolded that part because, at least in our limited experience, oral argument in an interlocutory appeal is quite the exception.

One has to wonder what "other respects" were in the circuit court's order.

The online docket fails to pull up anything in this case, which likely means it's under seal, as is common in cases involving sexual abuse of minors. But we have never understood why the *docket* should be invisible as well, and we hope one day that the Court will change that practice. Protecting private information does not require denying the existence of the appeal.


  1. The other aspects were that the trial court ruled that, not only were the actions taken not discretionary, but were in fact ministerial. The Supreme Court overturned the finding of a ministerial action and simply affirmed that, based on the facts in evidence, it was not discretionary at this time.

  2. Ah so! Thanks much for the info!