text:
    George Michael BASS a/k/a George M. Bass, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
    No. 2013-CP-01230-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    June 24, 2014.

      George Michael Bass, appellant, pro se.
    Office of the Attorney General by Stephanie Breland Wood, attorney for appel-lee.
    Before IRVING, P.J., ISHEE and ROBERTS, JJ.
   ISHEE, J.,

for the court:

¶ 1. In 1993, George Michael Bass pleaded guilty in the Rankin County Circuit Court to murder, burglary of an occupied dwelling, and grand larceny. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, fifteen years for burglary of an occupied dwelling, and five years for grand larceny, with all sentences to run consecutively in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Bass later filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) that was denied by the circuit court. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s denial. Bass filed another PCR motion in 2013 challenging his guilty plea to murder. The circuit court dismissed it as procedurally barred. Bass now appeals on the grounds that the circuit court erred in its determination that his PCR motion was procedurally barred since he alleges he is entitled to DNA-evidence testing, and, therefore, is excepted from the bar. Finding no error, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 2. On February 19,1992, Bass asserts that he went to the home of Modeen Hudson in Pearl, Mississippi, looking for his father. Bass claims he was under the impression that his father was borrowing money from Hudson so that Bass could return to his home in Cameron, Louisiana. However, upon arriving at Hudson’s door, Bass states that he observed his father standing over Hudson’s body. Bass testified that Hudson was lying on the floor with a black cord wrapped around her neck and a pool of blood under her head.

¶ 3. Bass helped his father wrap Hudson’s dead body in a sheet and place the body in the trunk of her car. Bass admits that he then went back inside the home and raided the silver cabinet. He also took Hudson’s purse, which he alleges his father initially took from her home and placed on the hood of her car. Bass then placed the purse inside Hudson’s car and drove away in her car. He later used Hudson’s gas station credit card to fill the car with gas. After filling the car’s gas tank, Bass drove the car to Louisiana, where he unloaded and left Hudson’s body near a beach. Authorities in Louisiana located Bass in Hudson’s vehicle several days later, and Bass was indicted for capital murder.

¶ 4. In 1993, he agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of murder, with a recommended sentence of life in prison so as to avoid the death penalty. He also pleaded guilty to grand larceny and burglary of an occupied dwelling. Prior to the circuit court accepting his guilty plea, the circuit judge questioned Bass extensively as to his understanding of his choices and their consequences, including the recommended sentences for each crime.

¶ 5. The circuit judge then asked the State to review with Bass the evidence it had against him for the crime of murder. The State told the circuit judge that it had a sworn statement from a man named Steward Felice, who was in prison with Bass after he was arrested in Louisiana following the crime. Felice stated that while he and Bass were in prison together, Bass told him that on the night in question, he and his father went to Hudson’s house together and that Bass was in the house when his father killed Hudson. Felice’s statement directly contradicted Bass’s claim that he arrived at the house after Hudson was already dead. The State further noted that it expected to prove that Bass and his father went to the house with the intention of robbing Hudson and that the murder took place during the commission of the robbery.

¶ 6. Bass disagreed with the State’s proffer of evidence. In closing, the circuit judge asked Bass to explain to him what had happened on the night in question to ensure that Bass was actually guilty of the crimes to which he was pleading.

¶ 7. Bass recounted the events of the evening in question. The circuit judge accepted his guilty plea. The judge then sentenced Bass to life imprisonment for murder, fifteen years for burglary of an occupied dwelling, and five years for grand larceny. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, all in the custody of the MDOC.

¶ 8. Bass later filed a PCR motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and error surrounding pretrial circumstances. The circuit court denied the motion, and the supreme court upheld the denial in Bass v. State, 696 So.2d 1069 (Miss.1997).

¶ 9. In April 2013, Bass filed another PCR motion. Therein, he asked the circuit court to review his case and allow for new DNA-evidence testing that was not previously available at the time of his conviction and which he claims would contradict his guilty plea to murder. The circuit court denied the motion as being procedurally barred. Bass now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5 (Supp.2013) governs PCR motions. The statute provides that a prisoner has three years within which to request post-conviction relief. After that time, only certain cases are excepted from the procedural bar. Exceptions to the three-year statute of limitations are as follows:

That there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of [the petitioner’s] conviction or sentence or that [the petitioner] has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence; or [t]hat, even if the petitioner pled guilty or nolo contendere, or confessed or admitted to a crime, there exists biological evidence not tested, or, if previously tested, that can be subjected to additional DNA testing that would provide a reasonable likelihood of more probative results, and that testing would demonstrate by reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such forensic DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the petitioner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. Likewise excepted are filings for post-conviction relief in capital cases which shall be made within one (1) year after conviction.

Miss.Code Ann. § 99 — 39—5(2)(a)(i)—(ii).

¶ 11. Bass claims the portions of the statute referencing DNA testing are applicable to his case and warrant his PCR motion being deemed an exception to the time-bar. Bass asserts that DNA testing is available now that was not available at the time of his court proceedings in 1993. He requests that fingerprints on the cord used to strangle Hudson and fingernail scrapings recovered from Hudson’s body be tested and compared to his DNA to exonerate him of the crime of murder.

¶ 12. Section 99 — 39—5(2)(a)(ii) provides that an untimely PCR motion may be excepted if the “DNA testing ... would demonstrate by reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such forensic DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution.” Here, even if DNA testing were to be completed and the fingerprints and fingernail scrapings did not match Bass’s DNA, it would not show by any reasonable probability that Bass’s guilty plea would not have been accepted or that he would have received a lesser sentence.

¶ 13. In order for a guilty plea to be accepted, a factual basis for the plea must be established under which the prosecution could prove that the accused committed the crime charged. Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993). “[The] factual basis may be formed by any facts presented before the court or otherwise in the record before the court.” Id. (citation omitted). In an effort to avoid a trial for capital murder, whereby he would face the death penalty, Bass entered a guilty plea for the lesser charge of murder and told the circuit court his version of the events that took place on the night in question. He stated that Hudson was already on the floor in a pool of blood by the time he arrived at her house. The State, however, proffered contradictory evidence from Felice’s statement that Bass was inside the house when the murder took place and that he and his father went to Hudson’s house together with the intention of robbing her. Even if the DNA evidence reflected that the DNA matched Bass’s father and not Bass, it does not negate the contradictory evidence showing Bass may have been inside the house when the murder took place. It also does not show that Bass was not involved in the murder. Bass admitted that he wiped away all of his fingerprints from the house before leaving in Hudson’s car. This could have included the cord used in the murder. Furthermore, evidence that there were two people present in the house but that only one person’s DNA is reflected in DNA-evidence testing does not necessarily negate the other person’s involvement in the crime. We cannot say that the circuit court did not have sufficient evidence before it to conclude that a factual basis existed under which Bass may have been found guilty of murdering Hudson.

¶ 14. Furthermore, Bass knew that part of the plea bargain included the State’s recommendation of a life sentence for the crime of murder in exchange for removing capital murder, and the death penalty, from the realm of possibilities. Hence, we cannot find that favorable results from DNA-evidence testing would have resulted in a lesser sentence for Bass. The circuit court imposed the State’s recommendation — a recommendation of which Bass was aware and to which he agreed. Bass reaped the benefits of a plea negotiation. His guilty plea was properly received, and he was sentenced as provided for in the plea negotiation. DNA testing would have borne no consequence on Bass’s conviction or sentence even if it had been available at the time of his conviction. Hence, his PCR motion is not excepted from the procedural bar, and the circuit court properly dismissed it.

¶ 15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO RANKIN COUNTY.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ„ CONCUR. JAMES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ISHEE, J.,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Jimmy C. REED, Jr., Appellant v. Gail Gillespie REED, Appellee.
    No. 2013-CA-00947-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    June 24, 2014.

      Joe D. Pegram, Oxford, attorney for appellant.
    Paul Chiniche, attorney for appellee.
    Before IRVING, P.J., ISHEE and FAIR, JJ.
   ISHEE, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. Following a March 2013 trial, the Lafayette County Chancery Court granted a divorce to Gail Gillespie Reed from Jimmy C. Reed Jr. on the ground of desertion. Due to a variety of circumstances, Jimmy and his attorney, Joe D. Pegram, did not appear at the trial. Hence, a hearing was held without them and a judgment was entered against Jimmy as to the grant of divorce, as well as the division of marital assets and financial obligations. Jimmy now appeals, claiming the judgment should be set aside, but only with regard to his financial obligations, and the case should be remanded to the chancery court for a hearing where both parties may present their financial conditions to the chancery court. Finding error as to the division of property, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶ 2. Jimmy and Gail were married in 1980. During their marriage, they had three children, all of whom had reached the age of majority and were emancipated by the time the instant proceedings began. At some point prior to 2012, the parties separated. On January 6, 2012, Gail filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, desertion, and, alternatively, irreconcilable differences. In his answer to Gail’s complaint, Jimmy denied that Gail was entitled to a divorce on any ground except for irreconcilable differences. Jimmy also counterclaimed that he was entitled to a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. However, he agreed to move forward only on the ground of irreconcilable differences.

¶ 3. After a contentious discovery period, Jimmy requested that the case be set for trial on May 20, 2013, which the chancery court allowed. However, due to extenuating circumstances, Jimmy and Pe-gram did not attend the trial. In his brief on appeal, Pegram notes that Chancellor Edwin Roberts had been diagnosed with multiple serious medical conditions. Pe-gram explains that he was under the distinct impression that Chancellor Roberts would not be able to attend the trial on May 20, 2013. He asserts that he was told by numerous sources that Chancellor Roberts was being treated for his medical conditions out of the State and that Chancellor Roberts’s cases had been reassigned to Chancellor Glenn Alderson. The record indicates that on April 30, 2013, Pegram visited Chancellor Alderson’s office to have him sign an order of continuance, as the new judge on the case. However, while Chancellor Alderson had been assigned many of Chancellor Roberts’s cases, he indicated to Pegram that a substitute judge may be assigned to his case but to wait on the order of continuance. Pegram so firmly believed that Chancellor Roberts would be unable to attend the trial that he faxed a letter to his opposing counsel in the case on May 8, 2013, stating he was certain there would be no trial on May 20, 2013.

¶ 4. Nonetheless, there was not a notice issued by the chancery court indicating that the trial would be rescheduled or that it would be reassigned. Thereafter, Chancellor Roberts appeared in court for the trial on May 20, 2013, as did Gail and her attorney. Jimmy and Pegram did not appear. When it became clear that Jimmy and Pegram were not going to attend the trial, Chancellor Roberts held the court in recess while his office attempted to call Pegram. The record reflects that all calls made to Pegram’s office indicated that the telephone was off the hook. Chancellor Roberts’s office also attempted to reach Pegram by telephone at his home. However, no one answered and a voice message was left. Pegram states that while he was at his office all day on May 20, 2013, his phone line was not working.

¶ 5. Hence, the chancery court allowed the trial to proceed. Gail presented physical evidence and testimony regarding the parties’ financial conditions and the events leading up to the divorce. At the close of the trial, Chancellor Roberts granted Gail a divorce on the ground of desertion. He further ordered that Jimmy pay Gail $500 per month in alimony, which he had been paying in temporary support, until her death or remarriage, $15,000 in a lump sum for Gail to purchase a new vehicle, and $1,500 in a lump sum for Gail’s court costs and attorney’s fees.

¶ 6. Upon learning of the judgment by means of a fax sent by Gail’s attorney, Pegram filed a motion for rehearing on May 21, 2013. There, he requested that the chancery court revisit the case at a hearing in which Jimmy could present his financial condition to the court to prove he could not meet the financial requirements imposed in the judgment. The motion also noted the reasons why Jimmy and Pegram did not attend the trial. Finally, the motion stated that the judgment was inequitable and, thus, erroneous.

¶ 7. On May 22, 2013, the chancery court denied the motion for rehearing. Chancellor Roberts stated that his office had attempted to contact Pegram at his office and at home for an hour before continuing with the trial. The order also noted that Jimmy had failed to indicate to Chancellor Roberts at any time before the trial that a continuance may be needed. Hence, the chancery court asserted that it had to allow Gail to proceed with her case.

¶ 8. On appeal, Jimmy does not contest the entry of divorce on the ground of desertion. However, he requests that the default judgment be set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. He asserts that the judgment regarding the parties’ financial obligations must be remanded since the chancery court failed to reference the Ferguson factors in its analysis. Finding error as to the property division, we reverse and remand this case for a new trial.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9. It is well settled that appellate courts are bound by a limited standard of review in domestic-relations matters. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 930 (Miss.1994). A chancellor must have been manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or have applied an erroneous legal standard, for a judgment to be overturned. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 759 So.2d 1238, 1240 (¶ 5) (Miss.2000).

¶ 10. The Mississippi Supreme Court in Lee v. Lee (Lee II), 78 So.3d 326, 328 (¶ 7) (Miss.2012), stated that “[a] divorce judgment entered when a party fails to appear is a special kind of default judgment. And to obtain relief from such judgments, absent parties are required to raise the issues in post-trial motions.... ” (Quotation marks omitted). Lee was first presented on appeal to this Court in Lee v. Lee (Lee I), 78 So.3d 337 (Miss.Ct.App.2011). There, the defendant, Corey Lee, filed for divorce. Id. at 338 (¶ 2). Though he was initially represented by an attorney, his attorney eventually withdrew from the case, and Lee represented himself pro se. Id. Lee failed to attend the trial, and did not enter the courtroom until the chancellor was issuing his ruling from the bench. Id. The chancellor entered a judgment in favor of Lee’s wife with regard to child custody, child support, and division of the marital property. Id.

¶ 11. Lee filed a motion to vacate the divorce judgment the day after the trial. Id. at (¶ 3). In his motion, he provided medical explanations as to why he was so late in arriving to the trial. Id. He also attached a copy of a receipt from a pharmacy showing where he had purchased medication to help alleviate his medical symptoms. Id. However, he did not provide any argument or evidence as to why the judgment should be vacated. Id. He only addressed his reasons for why he did not participate in the trial. Id.

¶ 12. Immediately thereafter, Lee hired an attorney to file a post-trial motion on his behalf. Lee II, 78 So.3d at 327 (¶ 4). The motion specifically challenged the chancellor’s judgment and asked that the judgment be vacated. Id. at 328 (¶9). The motion asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment and that the judgment was inequitable. Id. at 328-29 (¶¶ 9, 13). However, Lee’s motion did not include any direct reference to the Ferguson factors, nor did it challenge specific evidence presented at trial. Lee I, 78 So.3d at 339 (¶ 10). A hearing took place on the motion, at which point Lee’s attorney argued orally that the chancellor failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law per Ferguson. Lee II, 78 So.3d at 328 (¶ 9). Following the hearing, the chancery court denied both post-trial motions. Id. at (¶ 4).

¶ 13. Lee quickly filed an appeal following the chancellor’s ruling. Lee I, 78 So.3d at 338 (¶ 4). On appeal, Lee did not contest the grant of a divorce or the chancery court’s decision to try the case in his absence. Id. Rather, Lee argued that the chancery court failed to issue proper findings to support the awards of child custody, child support, and equitable distribution of the marital assets as required by Ferguson. Id. He also asserted that the findings were not supported by sufficient evidence. Id.

¶ 14. In our analysis on appeal, we relied heavily on our findings in Luse v. Luse, 992 So.2d 659 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). Lee I, 78 So.3d at 340 (¶ 8). In Luse, we held that a party may not defend a case for the first time on appeal. Luse, 992 So.2d at 663 (¶ 12). The facts in Luse are similar to those in Lee with one distinct exception — the defendant, John Luse, failed to timely file a post-trial motion and raised all pertinent issues for the first time on appeal. Id. Luse also did not answer his wife’s complaint for divorce, and, like Lee, did not appear for the trial. Id. at 661 (¶ 4). The chancellor issued a default judgment against Luse, which Luse appealed on the ground that the chancellor committed manifest error by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Ferguson. Id. at 663 (¶ 12). Having found that the defendant’s assignment of error was procedurally barred, we stated:

Without waiving the procedural bar, we find that on the merits, Mr. Luse is correct in stating that there were no specific findings made in the chancellor’s order regarding the property distribution. However, there is a presumption that sufficient evidence was heard to sustain a decree once it has been entered. No evidence was presented by Mr. Luse to counter this presumption of correctness. Accordingly, we find no error.

Id. at (¶ 13) (citation omitted).

¶ 15. In our Lee analysis, we relied on Luse in concluding the following:

While [Lee] did timely file two post-trial motions, he did not raise the same issues he now seeks to advance on appeal. [Lee]’s initial pro se motion to vacate the judgment offered only an explanation for his failure to appear and a request that the court vacate the divorce judgment. It was followed by a Rule 59 motion, filed with the assistance of counsel, that proffered evidence to contest the chancellor’s awards of child support and equitable division. With a few exceptions, neither of these motions attacked the evidence presented at the trial or the chancellor’s findings of fact, as [Lee] now seeks to do on appeal.... [Lee] has not attempted to show that his post-trial motions should have been granted, and on appeal he appears to have abandoned the contentions made there. The record reveals no basis for this Court to conclude the chancellor abused his discretion in denying [Lee]’s post-trial motions.

Lee I, 78 So.3d at 340 (¶ 10). Subsequently, we found that Lee was procedurally barred from raising his arguments on appeal because they had not been specifically put forth in either of his post-trial motions. Id. at 340-41 (¶¶ 10-11).

¶ 16. After granting certiorari, the supreme court reviewed our judgment in Lee and reversed both this Court’s judgment and the chancery court’s judgment. Lee II, 78 So.3d at 327 (¶ 1). There, the supreme court addressed the factual distinction between Luse and Lee regarding Luse’s failure to timely file a post-trial motion and the consequences. Id. at 329 (¶ 9). The supreme court noted:

[U]nlike John Luse, Corey Lee raised the issue before the chancellor. In his Rule 59 motion, [Lee] argued that the division of marital property was inequitable. At the hearing on the motion, [Lee]’s attorney specifically argued that the chancellor had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by Ferguson. Therefore, [Lee] is not procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal.... Here, the chancellor referred to Ferguson by case name in his ruling from the bench, but he never applied the factors, nor did he make findings of fact and conclusions of law. In the chancellor’s final decree of divorce, he made no mention of Ferguson or its guidelines.... The fact that [Lee] failed to attend the divorce trial does not relieve the chancellor of his duty to base his decision on the evidence, regardless of by whom presented, nor did it nullify this Court’s mandate in Ferguson.

Id. at 328-329 (¶¶ 9,11,13).

¶ 17. Similarly, in the case before us, the chancellor made mention of the Ferguson factors only in passing during his ruling from the bench. The chancellor’s bench ruling consisted of the following, in its entirety: “I’m going to grant the relief requested by the wife verbatim. If it becomes necessary, I’ll enter a finding of Ferguson factors and the other things involved.” However, the chancellor did not mention Ferguson at all in his written judgment of divorce, nor did he provide any explanation or analysis that would support the findings listed in the judgment. Additionally, the evidence presented at trial was not mentioned in the judgment. Rather, the judgment, with regard to distribution of the marital assets and alimony, simply reads:

That the Husband shall pay unto the Wife the sum of Five Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($500.00) as permanent alimony on the 15th day of each and every month until her death or remarriage.
That the Husband shall continue to provide automobile insurance for the Wife for the remainder of her life. Additionally, the Husband shall pay unto the Wife Fifteen Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($15,000.00) for the purchase of a vehicle.
That the Husband shall reimburse the Wife $1,500.00 for court costs and attorney's] fees.
That the Husband shall indemnify Wife for any debts, expenses, costs, and attorney's] fees the Husband incurred in the Wife’s name and without her knowledge in the form of alimony or equitable distribution of marital assets.

¶ 18. Hence, since Reed raised the issue of inequity in his post-trial motion and the chancellor failed to support his findings with any analysis, discussion, or mention of the Ferguson factors or the evidence before him, this case is postured for remand. Furthermore, due to the unfortunate passing of the chancellor shortly after his judgment was issued, we must remand the case for a new trial since the current chancellor should be afforded a first-hand account of all relevant facts and evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the chancery court as to the property division only, and the case is remanded for a new trial. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

¶ 19. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LAFAYETTE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED ONE-HALF TO THE APPELLANT AND ONE-HALF TO THE APPELLEE.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

      . Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994).


author: LEE, C.J.,

text:
    Gae DICKINSON, Appellant v. Jonathan VANDERBURG d/b/a Wash & Dry and Howard Sidney Vanderburg, Appellees.
    No. 2013-CA-00044-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    June 24, 2014.

      Philip Andrew Stroud, Brandon Lyle Flechas, Southaven, attorneys for appellant.
    Goodloe Tankersley Lewis, Oxford, Jeffrey Dean Leathers, Tupelo, attorneys for appellees.
    Before LEE, C.J., BARNES and FAIR, JJ.
   LEE, C.J.,

for the court:

¶ 1. On May 29, 2009, Gae Dickinson tripped as she was entering Wash & Dry in Olive Branch, Mississippi. Dickinson filed suit in the DeSoto County Circuit Court against Jonathan Vanderburg (Van-derburg) d/b/a Wash & Dry and Howard Sidney Vanderburg (Sidney). Sidney, Vanderburg’s father, owned the building where the Wash & Dry was located, but the Wash <& Dry was operated by Vander-burg. Vanderburg leased the premises from Sidney.

¶ 2. Sidney filed a motion for summary judgment, which Vanderburg joined. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted both defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that Sidney was not liable for Dickinson’s injuries as the lessor of the premises and that the threshold over which Dickinson tripped and fell was not unreasonably dangerous.

¶3. Dickinson now appeals, asserting the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Vanderburg. Dickinson does not appeal the trial court’s decision pertaining to Sidney.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4. In considering a trial court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review and “examines all the evidentiary matters before it-admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc.” City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So.2d 977, 979 (¶ 7) (Miss.2001) (citation omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court recently clarified the summary-judgment standard, explaining that “[t]he movant bears the burden of persuading the trial judge that: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, and (2) on the basis of the facts established, he is entitled to [a] judgment as a matter of law.” Karpinsky v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So.3d 84, 88 (¶ 11) (Miss.2013) (citation omitted). The supreme court further stated that “[t]he movant bears the burden of production if, at trial, he would bear the burden of proof on the issue raised. In other words, the movant only bears the burden of production where [he] would bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 88-89 (¶ 11) (citations omitted). Specifically, in premises-liability cases, “Mississippi law further requires that when a dangerous condition exists that was ‘created by someone not associated with the business, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the owner or operator had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition as well as a sufficient opportunity to correct it.’ ” Id. at (¶ 12) (quoting Miller v. R.B. Wall Oil Co., 970 So.2d 127, 132 (¶ 17) (Miss.2007)). The supreme court again clarified that “while [defendants carry the initial burden of persuading the trial judge that no issue of material fact exists and that they are entitled to summary judgment based upon the established facts, [the plaintiff] carries the burden of producing sufficient evidence of the essential elements of her claim at the summary-judgment stage, as she would carry the burden of production at trial.” Id. at (¶ 13).

DISCUSSION

¶ 5. In her only issue on appeal, Dickinson contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Vanderburg. Specifically, Dickinson argues that whether the height of the threshold constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition was a jury question.

¶ 6. Mississippi uses a three-step process in analyzing premises liability: “First, we must determine whether the injured party was an invitee, licensee, or a trespasser at the time of the injury. Next, we must determine what duty was owed to the injured party by the business owner/operator. Finally, we must determine whether that duty was breached.” Rod v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 931 So.2d 692, 694 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (internal citations omitted).

¶ 7. It is undisputed that Dickinson was a business invitee because she entered the Wash & Dry “in answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for their mutual advantage.” Id. at (¶ 10) (citation omitted). “A business owner/operator owes to invitees the duty to keep the premises reasonably safe, and when not reasonably safe, to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is not in plain and open view.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 8. To succeed in her premises-liability action, Dickinson must prove one of the following: “(1) a negligent act by [Vanderburg] caused [her] injury; or, (2) that [Vanderburg] had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, but failed to warn [her] of the danger; or, (3) the dangerous condition remained long enough to impute constructive knowledge to [Vanderburg].” Byrne v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 877 So.2d 462, 465 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citation omitted). A business owner, however, is not an insurer of an invitee’s injuries. Id. at (¶ 6). Furthermore, mere proof “of the occurrence of a fall on a floor within [the] business premises is insufficient to show negligence on the part of the proprietor.” Id. (citation omitted).

¶ 9. Dickinson’s sole contention is that the raised threshold over which she tripped was a dangerous condition since the threshold was approximately two inches above the exterior sidewalk. According to Russell J. Kendzior, Dickinson’s expert, the threshold over which Dickinson fell constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition that Vanderburg had a duty to identify and correct. Kendzior contends Vanderburg should have placed signs warning customers of the raised threshold or painted the elevated area a different color to draw attention to the hazard.

¶ 10. In McGovern v. Scarborough, 566 So.2d 1225, 1228 (Miss.1990), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a raised threshold was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law because the floor itself was at least two inches higher than the exterior walkway. Although the Mississippi Supreme Court revised the open-and-obvious standard in Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So.2d 20, 25 (Miss.1994), by finding that a plaintiffs failure to recognize an open and obvious danger operates to reduce damages, not preclude liability, the result in McGovern — that a raised threshold was not unreasonably dangerous — still stands. See also Wood v. RIH Acquisitions MS II, 556 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir. 2009) (“At least those hazards that are similar to undamaged thresholds, curbs, and steps, which are common architectural features for buildings and parking lots, may properly be found not to be unreasonably dangerous.”). In this instance, the threshold at the Wash & Dry was undamaged. The threshold was not a dangerous condition; thus, we find summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Vanderburg.

¶ 11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DE-SOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J„ CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.


author: BRYAN, Justice.

text:
    Ex parte U.S. INNOVATION GROUP, INC., et al. (In re Judy A. Hawke, as administratrix and personal representative of the estate of James R. Hawke, Jr., deceased v. U.S. Centrifuge Systems, LLC, et al.). Ex parte U.S. Innovation Group, Inc., et al. (In re Carolyn Grimes, individually, as administratrix and personal representative of the estate of Jerry A. Grimes, deceased, and as a dependent survivor of Jerry A. Grimes, deceased v. Amtec Corporation et al.).
    1120296 and 1120297.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    June 28, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 2013.
    William P. Gray, Jr., and John David Gray of Gray & Associates, LLC, Birmingham; Gary K. Grace, Jr., and Jennifer M. Matthews of Grace Matthews & Debro, LLC, Huntsville, for petitioners U.S. Innovation Group, Inc., Scott Behrens, John Emmert, Mike Evans, and Jack Dombro-ski.
    David J. Hodge, Harvey B. Morris, and Joseph D. Aiello of Morris, King & Hodge, Huntsville, for respondent Judy A. Hawke.
    Joseph M. Brown, Jr., David G. Wirtes, Jr., George M. Dent III, and William E. Bonner of Cunningham Bounds, LLC, Mobile; and David A. Lee of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent Carolyn Grimes.
    Justin G. Williams and Brooke M. Nixon of Tanner & Guin, LLC, Tuscaloosa, filed brief on behalf of U.S. Centrifuge Systems, LLC, in support of U.S. Innovation Group, Inc.’s petition for the writ of mandamus.
   On Applications for Rehearing

BRYAN, Justice.

U.S. Innovation Group, Inc., Scott Beh-rens, Jack Dombroski, Mike Evans, and John Emmert (collectively “the USIG defendants”) have petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Madison Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) to dismiss the claims filed against them in separate actions by Judy A. Hawke and Carolyn Grimes. The USIG defendants argue that because the claims arose on Redstone Arsenal, which is a federal enclave subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, the circuit court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. We deny the petitions.

Facts and Procedural History

In 1943, the State of Alabama ceded property in Madison County to the government of the United States, pursuant to Art. I, § 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution, and other relevant federal and State statutes. The deed for the ceded property, which included land for Red-stone Arsenal, was signed by then Governor Chauncey Sparks and provided, among other things, that the United States has “exclusive jurisdiction” over the land in-eluded in that deed. The deed provided further “[t]hat the jurisdiction so ceded shall not prevent the execution upon such lands of any process, civil or criminal, issued under the authority of this State, except as such process might affect the property of the United States thereon” and

“[t]hat the State of Alabama expressly reserves the right to tax all persons, firms, corporations, or associations now or hereafter residing or located upon said land; to tax the exercise by any person, firm, corporation, or association of any kind and all rights, privileges, and franchises upon said land; and to tax property of all persons, firms, corporations, or associations situated upon said land. The jurisdiction ceded is for the purposes of the cession, and none other, and shall continue during the time the United States shall be or remain the owner thereof and shall use such land for the purposes of the cession, and the State of Alabama expressly reserves the right to exercise over or upon any such land any and all rights, privileges, powers, or jurisdiction which may now or hereafter be released or receded by the United States to the State.”

In 2010, Jerry A. Grimes and James R. Hawke, Jr., were injured in an explosion while working on a project at Redstone Arsenal. Both men died as a result of their injuries. In December 2011, Grimes’s widow, Carolyn Grimes, in her individual capacity, as administratrix and personal representative of Jerry Grimes’s estate, and as a dependent survivor of Jerry Grimes, filed a wrongful-death action against the USIG defendants, among others. In February 2012, Hawke’s widow, Judy A. Hawke, in her capacity as administratrix and personal representative of James Hawke’s estate, also filed a wrongful-death action against the USIG defendants, among others.

The wrongful-death actions were filed in the circuit court but were removed separately to federal court. The cases were remanded to the circuit court on the ground that the removals did not comply with the • procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Two subsequent attempts were made to remove the cases to federal court on the basis of exclusive federal-court jurisdiction, but each time the federal courts refused the cases, finding that the circuit court had concurrent jurisdiction over the claims.

In October 2012, the circuit court consolidated the two cases. Just prior to the consolidation, the USIG defendants moved the circuit court to dismiss the claims in each ease, again arguing that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising on federal enclaves. The circuit court denied the motions and ordered production of certain requested discovery.

The USIG defendants filed, as to each case, a petition for the writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the claims against them and declaring void the circuit court’s discovery orders. Those petitions were denied by separate orders of this Court. The USIG defendants applied for a rehearing in both cases, and those applications were granted. The petitions for the writ of mandamus were consolidated for the purpose of issuing one opinion.

Issue

The USIG defendants argue that this Court should grant their petitions for mandamus relief because, they argue, the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising on Redstone Arsenal and because “[t]he [circuit] court erred and abused its discretion, by granting [Grimes’s and Hawke’s] respective Motions to Compel discovery where it had no jurisdiction to do so.” Petitions, at 5-6.

Analysis

“A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and is appropriate when the petitioner can show (1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.”

Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Ala.2001) (quoting Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153, 156 (Ala.2000)).

The USIG defendants argue that they have a clear legal right to have the claims against them dismissed because, they argue, “the deed of cession for [Redstone] Arsenal unequivocally grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government” and, therefore, “no Alabama court has jurisdiction over the matter.” Petitions, at 6. The USIG defendants go on to argue that “the U.S. government enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over ‘all cases whatsoever’ which arise on Art. I federal enclaves.” Petitions, at 7.

In Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652, 50 S.Ct. 455, 74 L.Ed. 1091 (1930), the Supreme Court of the United States stated:

“[Article I, § 8, clause 17] says that Congress shall have power to exercise ‘exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever’ over a place so purchased.... ‘Exclusive legislation’ is consistent only with exclusive jurisdiction. It can have no other meaning as to the seat of government, and what it means as to that it also means as to forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. That no divided jurisdiction respecting the seat of government is intended is not only shown by the terms employed, but is a matter of public history. Why as to forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc., is the power given made to depend on purchase with the consent of the Legislature of the state if the jurisdiction of the United States is not to be exclusive and that of the state excluded?
“The question is not an open one. It long has been settled that, where lands for such a purpose are purchased by the United States with the consent of the state Legislature, the jurisdiction theretofore residing in the state passes, in virtue of the constitutional provision, to the United States, thereby making the jurisdiction of the latter the sole jurisdiction.”

The USIG defendants argue that “exclusive legislation” or “sole jurisdiction,” as discussed in Surplus Trading Co., necessarily includes exclusive adjudicative jurisdiction. They go on to argue that “[t]he language of the Constitution grants Congress ‘like Authority’ to the authority granted to Congress over the District of Columbia. Thus, the authority ceded by the State of Alabama ‘encompasses the full authority of government, and thus, necessarily, the Executive and Judicial powers as well as the Legislative.’ ” Petitions, at 9-10 (quoting Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 76, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982)).

However, “[exclusive ‘legislation’ has been construed to mean exclusive ‘jurisdiction’ in the sense of exclusive sovereignty.” Mater v. Holley, 200 F.2d 123, 123 (5th Cir.1952) (citing Surplus Trading Co., 281 U.S. at 652). In Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 481-82, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981), the Supreme Court stated:

“Nothing inherent in exclusive federal sovereignty over a territory precludes a state court from entertaining a personal injury suit concerning events occurring in the territory and governed by federal law. Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68 (1917). See 16 U.S.C. § 457 (personal injury and wrongful-death actions involving events occurring ‘within a national park or other place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the exterior boundaries of any State’ shall be maintained as if the place were under the jurisdiction of the State). Cf. Evans v. Common, 398 U.S. 419, 424 (1970) (residents of an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction within a State are ‘subject to the process and jurisdiction of state courts’). ‘The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe.’ The Federalist No. 82, p. 514 (H. Lodge ed. 1908) (Hamilton), quoted in Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. [130], at 138 [ (1876) ]. State courts routinely exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over civil cases arising from events in other States and governed by the other States’ laws. See, e.g., Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U.S. 11 (1881). Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981). That the location of the event giving rise to the suit is an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction rather than another State, does not introduce any new limitation on the forum State’s subject-matter jurisdiction.”

(Emphasis added.)

In Gulf Offshore Co., the Supreme Court addressed “whether federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over suits under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 67 Stat. 462, as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. Ill)” (“OCSLA”). 453 U.S. at 475. “OCSLA declares the Outer Continental Shelf to be an area of ‘exclusive federal jurisdiction.’ ” 453 U.S. at 479 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(1)). The petitioner in that case argued that “the assertion of exclusive political jurisdiction over the Shelf evinces a congressional intent that federal courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over controversies arising from operations on the Shelf.” 453 U.S. at 480. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, stating: “It is black letter law, however, that the mere grant of jurisdiction to a federal court does not operate to oust a state court from concurrent jurisdiction over the cause of action.” 453 U.S. at 479.

The Supreme Court went on to conclude that “nothing in the language, structure, legislative history, or underlying policies of OCSLA suggests that Congress intended federal courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over personal injury actions arising under OCSLA.” 453 U.S. at 484. Thus, a grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction or sovereignty over the Outer Continental Shelf did not, by itself, indicate an intention to divest state courts of concurrent jurisdiction over claims arising on such lands. See Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 507-08, 82 S.Ct. 519, 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962) (“We start with the premise that nothing in the concept of our federal system prevents state courts from enforcing rights created by federal law. Concurrent jurisdiction has been a common phenomenon in our judicial history, and exclusive federal court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law has been the exception rather than the rule.... ‘The general question, whether State courts can exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, has been elaborately discussed, both on the bench and in published treatises ... (and) the result of these discussions has, in our judgment, been ... to affirm the jurisdiction, where it is not excluded by express provision, or by incompatibility in its exercise arising from the nature of the particular case.’ ” (quoting Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876) (footnote omitted))).

Like OCSLA, the deed for Red-stone Arsenal granted the United States “exclusive jurisdiction” over the property included in the deed. However, nothing in the deed or in any other document brought to this Court’s attention indicates that the State intended its grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction or sovereignty over Redstone Arsenal to create exclusive federal-court jurisdiction or to oust the State courts of subject-matter jurisdiction of claims arising on that land. As noted previously, a grant of “exclusive federal jurisdiction” over land does not, by itself, indicate an intention to create exclusive federal-court jurisdiction of claims arising on that land. See Gulf Offshore Co., supra. See also Mater, 200 F.2d at 123 (“The Supreme Court has held that an action for personal injuries suffered on a reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States ... may be maintained in a state court which has personal jurisdiction of the defendant.” (citing Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon, 244 U.S. 68, 72, 37 S.Ct. 599, 61 L.Ed. 997 (1917) (“[A]n action for personal injuries being in its nature transitory and susceptible of being brought in any jurisdiction in which the defendant may be impleaded, there is no foundation for the contention that the [state] court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit.”))).

The USIG defendants argue that the Supreme Court’s rationale in Gulf Offshore Co. should not apply in this case because Gulf Offshore Co. did not involve claims arising on a federal enclave. However, the Supreme Court noted in Gulf Offshore Co. that “Congress rejected the Department [of Justice’s] premise that the Shelf is ‘not comparable to federally owned areas within a State.’ Section 1333(a)(1) rather provides that the federal laws apply to the Shelf ‘to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State.’” 453 U.S. at 483 n. 9 (citations omitted). Thus, the analysis in Gulf Offshore Co. is apposite here.

The USIG defendants cite Surplus Trading Co., supra, United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284, 74 L.Ed. 761 (1930), and Fort Leavenworth R.R. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264 (1885), in support of their argument that the “jurisdiction of the federal government is exclusive of all state authority, which is completely ousted.” Petitions, at 10. However, neither Surplus Trading Co. nor Lowe addresses the jurisdiction of state courts over claims arising on federal enclaves. Instead, those cases address a state’s authority to assess and collect taxes on property located within a federal enclave. Those cases address limitations on state legislative jurisdiction rather than state-court adjudicative jurisdiction.

The USIG defendants’ reliance on Un-zeuta is similarly misplaced because that ease involves criminal charges brought against a defendant for a murder that allegedly took place on a right-of-way owned by a private company but located within a federal enclave. Congress has provided that in criminal matters “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. No criminal matters are at issue in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision in Unzeuta is inapposite here.

The USIG defendants cite Webb v. J.G. White Engineering Corp., 204 Ala. 429, 85 So. 729 (1920), Pound v. Gaulding, 237 Ala. 387, 187 So. 468 (1939), and State v. Blair, 238 Ala. 377, 191 So. 237 (1939), for the proposition that Alabama courts have declined jurisdiction over claims arising on federal enclaves in the past. However, the question at issue in Webb was “whether Congress had assumed jurisdiction over said territory and legislated so as to exclude plaintiff from a remedy under the state statutes, or given him instead a remedy for his alleged injuries and wrongs on which the suit may be maintained in a federal forum.” Webb, 204 Ala. at 431, 85 So. at 730. This Court determined that the claims in that case, which had arisen on a federal enclave, were within the purview of the federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 751 et seq., which provided an administrative remedy through the Employees’ Compensation Commission. Therefore, this Court concluded, the State circuit court did not have jurisdiction to address those claims.

From all that appears, however, no comparable federal administrative remedy has been created for the claims at issue in this case. Instead, Congress has provided:

“In the case of the death of any person by the neglect or wrongful act of another within a national park or other place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the exterior boundaries of any State, such right of action shall exist as though the place were under the jurisdiction of the State within whose exterior boundaries such place may be; and in any action brought to recover on account of injuries sustained in any such place the rights of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State within the exterior boundaries of which it may be.”

16 U.S.C. § 457. Webb is distinguishable in that regard.

Neither Pound nor Blair supports the USIG defendants’ requests for mandamus relief because this Court did not hold in either case, either expressly or by implication, that the State courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims raised in those cases. Instead, this Court affirmed the judgments of the respective State circuit court in each case as to the underlying claims. See Pound, supra (affirming the Calhoun Circuit Court’s judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of a carpenter and against his employer for injuries suffered while doing work at Fort McClellan); and Blair, supra (affirming the Montgomery Circuit Court’s judgment holding that the appellee owed no state taxes on gasoline stored on Maxwell Air Force Base).

Finally, the USIG defendants cite Lord v. Local Union No. 2088, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, 646 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir.1981), and Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 688 F.Supp.2d 1315 (N.D.Ala.2010), for the proposition that federal-court jurisdiction is exclusive unless the deed by which the land is ceded to the United States provides to the contrary. The USIG defendants also argue that the State knew how to reserve state-court jurisdiction when ceding land to the United States but that it did not do so in the deed for Redstone Arsenal. However, Lord and Corley involve issues related to the scope of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction. Neither case provides, either implicitly or expressly, for exclusive federal-court jurisdiction over claims arising on federal enclaves. As noted previously, exclusive legislative or political jurisdiction is not synonymous with exclusive adjudicative jurisdiction. See Gulf Offshore Co., 458 U.S. at 481 (“Nothing inherent in exclusive federal sovereignty over a territory precludes a state court from entertaining a personal injury suit concerning events occurring in the territory and governed by federal law.”).

Conclusion

The USIG defendants have not demonstrated that the circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged against them by Hawke and Grimes or that they have a clear legal right to have those claims dismissed. Our decision in this regard is dispositive of the USIG defendants’ request for mandamus relief from the circuit court’s discovery orders, which the USIG defendants argue were void because the court did not have jurisdiction over the wrongful-death actions. Therefore, we deny the petitions for the •writ of mandamus in these cases.

1120296 — PETITION DENIED.

1120297 — PETITION DENIED.

MOORE, C.J., and STUART, BOLIN, MURDOCK, SHAW, MAIN, and WISE, JJ., concur.

      . A "federal enclave” is "[t]erritory or land that a state has ceded to the United States.” Black's Law Dictionary 606 (9th ed.2009).

      . Article I, § 8, clause 17, gives Congress power "[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia], and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

      . Grimes’s complaint, as amended, also sought worker’s compensation benefits and included claims alleging breach of express and implied warranties.

      . Hawke’s complaint also asserted claims under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine and claims of breach of express and implied warranties.