the proof of causation from circumstantial evidence is: Proof of the necessary factual causal connection may be by either direct or circumstantial evidence, but in the event the latter is used, it must be sufficient to make the plaintiffs asserted theory reasonable probable, not merely possible, and more probable than any other theory based on such evidence, and it is generally for the trier of fact to say whether circumstantial evidence meets this test. 57A Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 461, at 441-42 (1989) (footnotes omitted). ¶ 10. Moreover, if the evidence is conflicting, the jury is the sole judge of credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony. In re Estate of Dabney, 740 So.2d 915, 919 (Miss.1999); Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Clinton, 727 So.2d 731, 734 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Under the applicable standard of review, the
holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because it was necessary to interpret the contract to resolve the parties dispute holding that if facts are in dispute jury is given authority to resolve them holding that the district court retained jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over an injunction bond even where the underlying dispute had itself been dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury