LeAnn W. Nealey

Appellate and Written Advocacy Group

Jackson Office
Tel: (601) 985-4581
Email: leann.nealey@butlersnow.com

V-Card Download V-Card
Areas of Emphasis
  • Appellate
  • Product Liability Law
  • Environmental Law
  • AV-rated, Martindale-Hubbell
  • Adjunct Professor, Legal Analysis and Writing, Mississippi College School of Law
  • President's Special Award for Outstanding Service to Children, Young Lawyers Division, Mississippi Bar, 1998
Education & Honors
  • Mississippi College, J.D., with special distinction, 1989
  • Associate Editor, Mississippi College Law Review
  • University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, B.S.E., magna cum laude, 1984
  • American Bar Association
  • Defense Research Institute
    • Appellate Advocacy Committee
    • Publications Subcommittee Chair, 2012-14
    • CLE Planning Subcommittee Chair, 2008-10
  • Capital Area Bar Association
    • Director, 2008
    • Community Services Committee Chair
  • Mississippi Bar Association
    • Child Advocacy Committee Director, 1997-99
    • Young Lawyers Division Director, 1997-99
Bar Admissions
  • Mississippi, 1989
  • U.S. District Courts
    • Mississippi: Northern and Southern Districts
  • U.S. Court of Appeals
    • 5th Circuit
    • Federal Circuit
  • Kroger Co. v. Knox, 98 So. 3d 441 (Miss. 2012) (Reversing a $ 2.5 Million judgment against a major grocery retailer in a premises liability case involving a woman beaten in a purse snatching on the store premises, the Court finding that evidence of four prior incidences was insufficient to establish the requisite atmosphere of violence and, additionally, there was no duty to supply armed security in the parking lot where the customer failed to prove her attack was a foreseeable consequence of the retailer’s lack of armed security in the lot).
  • Patrick v. Wal-Mart, Inc.--Store No. 155, 681 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment in Wal-Mart’s favor because (a) claim that initial workers’ compensation benefits denial was in bad faith was time-barred, and (b) amended complaint presenting claims that overcame limitations bar failed to satisfy plausibility requirement for pleadings).
  • Double Quick, Inc. v. Lymas, 50 So. 3d 292 (Miss. 2010) (reversing $4.2 million judgment (reduced to $1.7 million upon application of statutory cap) and rendering judgment in favor of Double Quick, holding that patron failed to show proximate causation and thus did not establish a premises liability claim against the store).
  • Tishomingo R.R. v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 632 (N.D. Miss. 2010), aff'd, 451 Fed. Appx. 379 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming judgment in BellSouth’s favor, holding that it did not owe licensing fees to railroad for fiber optic cable placed along railroad right-of-way because BellSouth had (i) a vested contract right to be along the right-of-way pursuant to Mississippi Laws of 1886, Chapter 38; (ii) a valid easement from NASA; and (iii) an easement by necessity).
  • Ellis v. Gresham Services Stations, Inc., 55 So. 3d 1153 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Double Quick based on a finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Double Quick's actual or constructive knowledge of an "atmosphere of violence" on the store's premises).
  • Gulf South Pipeline Co. v. Pitre, 35 So. 3d 494 (Miss. 2010) (Following a jury verdict in favor of the landowner for $175,000 in this eminent domain proceeding, Gulf South’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. Granting Gulf South’s petition for writ of certiorari, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and remanded for a new trial).
  • Borne v. Dunlop Tire Corp., Inc., 12 So. 3d 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (summary judgment for Dunlop affirmed based on plaintiff's lack of tire identification).
  • Townsend v. Doosan Infracore American Corp., 3 So. 3d 150 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (affirming trial court's exclusion of plaintiff's causation expert for lack of proper methodology under Daubert/McLemore standards and affirming summary judgment).
  • Upchurch Plumbing, Inc. v. Greenwood Utilities Com'n, 964 So. 2d 1100 (Miss. 2007) ($2.6 million judgment, including attorney fees, affirmed).
  • American Home Products Corp. v. Sumlin, 942 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 2006), (reversal and remand for pharmaceutical manufacturer based on improper venue).
  • City of Jackson v. Presley, 942 So. 2d 777 (Miss. 2006) (reversal and remand for City of Jackson based on trial court's sua sponte entering an unrequested default judgment on liability against the City).
  • Park on Lakeland Drive, Inc. v. Spence, 941 So. 2d 203 (Miss. 2006) (reversal and remand for skating park and park manager based on improper joinder of park manager and improper venue).
  • FMC Corp., Inc. v. Helton, 202 S.W.3d 490 (Ark. 2005) (reversal and remand on jury verdict against FMC in case brought by farmers for losses allegedly suffered by off-label use of insecticide manufactured by FMC, finding trial court abused its discretion by severing cross-claims that distributor and FMC brought against flying services; FMCs due process rights were violated by the admission of evidence of off-label use of insecticide in another state, as jury could have used the evidence to assess punitive damages; farmers were not entitled to damages for mental anguish; farmers did not have an outrage claim; and trial court abused its discretion by awarding farmers all of their attorney fees, not just those connected with their ADTPA claim).
  • Harris v. International Truck and Engine Corp., 912 So. 2d 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming summary judgment for ITEC based on finding that the manufacturer did not provide an inadequate warning in the owner's manual regarding the serious consequences of improperly replacing the axle bearing; the alleged inadequate warning in vehicle's owner's manual was not the proximate cause of driver's injuries; and the plaintiff-driver was not entitled to a rebuttable presumption that if proper warnings had been provided by the manufacturer the warnings would have been read and heeded).
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Murriel, 904 So. 2d 112 (Miss. 2004) (reversal and remand for State Farm based on improper joinder of in-state body shops and dismissal of four out-of-state body shops based on forum non conveniens).
  • Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F. 3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment for manufacturer of news van's telescoping mast in product liability action, finding telescoping mast was not defective for failing to contain adequate warnings or instructions when it left the control of the manufacturer; the alleged failure of manufacturer to adequately warn of dangers associated with mast was not the proximate cause of worker's death; manufacturer of telescoping mast had no post-sale duty to warn of dangers associated with mast; and mast was not defectively designed).
Papers, Presentations & Publications
  • A Reference Guide for Practitioners: The Mississippi Trial Courts of Record and Appellate Courts, The MDLA Quarterly (Spring 2012)
  • "Appeals Court Rejects Certification for Injunction Relief in Class Action," Counsel's Advisory (Washington Legal Foundation), May 6, 2011.
  • "Preserving Summary Judgment Based on the Exclusion of Expert Testimony," The MDLA Quarterly (Fall 2009).
  • "Daubert Admissibility Standards and Summary Judgment," Certworthy (Summer 2008).
  • Speaker, Fifth Circuit Update, "Annual Federal Practice and Procedure," (June 2009).
  • "A Guide to Legal Analysis," For the Defense (February 2006).
  • Mark Hermann's The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law, For the Defense (August 2006). (Book Review)
  • George Copen's Expectations: Teaching Writing from the Reader's Perspective, Certworthy (Spring 2005). (Book Review)

© Copyright 2014 Butler Snow LLP.  All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer

Questions or comments regarding our website may be directed to the Webmaster