Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. Le Blanc Lumber Co.green2 sentences1964Ed. 1948), Sec. 751; Planter’s Wholesale Grocery v. Kincade, supra. The range-of-vision rule is not an arbitrary rule of thumb to require ‘infallibility of the nocturnal motorist.’ The motorist must keep his car under such control that he can stop within the clear and unobstructed distance ahead of him, but in determining whether he should be held responsible, the character, appearance, and visibility of unlighted vehicles parked on the road must be taken into consideration. 1 Blashfield, ibid., Sec. 751; Thomas v. Thurston Motor Line, 230 N.C. 122 , 52 S.E. 2d 377, 383 (1949); Carter v. LaBla 1960Ed. 1948), Sec. 751; Planter’s Wholesale Grocery v. Kincaid, supra. The range-of-vision rule is not an arbitrary rule of thumb to require “infallibility of the nocturnal motorist.” The motorist must keep his car under such control that he can stop within the clear and unobstructed distance ahead of him, but in determining whether he should be held responsible, the character, appearance, and visibility of unlighted vehicles parked on the road must be taken into consideration. 1 Blash-field, ibid., Sec. 751; Thomas v. Thurston Motor Line, 230 N. C. 122 , 52 S. E. 2d 377, 383 (1949); Carter v. Le | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Motor Linesgreen2 sentences1964Ed. 1948), Sec. 751; Planter’s Wholesale Grocery v. Kincade, supra. The range-of-vision rule is not an arbitrary rule of thumb to require ‘infallibility of the nocturnal motorist.’ The motorist must keep his car under such control that he can stop within the clear and unobstructed distance ahead of him, but in determining whether he should be held responsible, the character, appearance, and visibility of unlighted vehicles parked on the road must be taken into consideration. 1 Blashfield, ibid., Sec. 751; Thomas v. Thurston Motor Line, 230 N.C. 122 , 52 S.E. 2d 377, 383 (1949); Carter v. LaBla 1964Ed. 1948), Sec. 751; Planter’s Wholesale Grocery v. Kincade, supra. The range-of-vision rule is not an arbitrary rule of thumb to require ‘infallibility of the nocturnal motorist.’ The motorist must keep his car under such control that he can stop within the clear and unobstructed distance ahead of him, but in determining whether he should be held responsible, the character, appearance, and visibility of unlighted vehicles parked on the road must be taken into consideration. 1 Blashfield, ibid., Sec. 751; Thomas v. Thurston Motor Line, 230 N.C. 122 , 52 S.E. 2d 377, 383 (1949); Carter v. LaBla | 2 | 2 |
Clifton Charles Russell, Jr. v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen1 sentence2009The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recognized that a prosecutor’s decision to enter into to plea bargains with some defendants and not with others, is not subject to constitutional scrutiny, “[a]bsent a showing of vindictiveness or use of an arbitrary standard[.]” Russell v. Collins, 998 F.2d 1287, 1294 (5th Cir.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. Stategreen1 sentence2009In Stevenson v. State, 325 So.2d 113, 115-16 (Miss.1975), the Mississippi Supreme Court not only found it “obvious ... that the discretion of a prosecutor and his power to plea bargain is constitutionally permissible[,]” but also opined that without such “prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining, our system of justice could not function.” ¶ 29. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Love v. Barnett
green
1 sentence1998In the recitation of the facts of Love v. Barnett, the opinion quotes from the chancellor’s bench ruling that “we’ve always pretty well stuck to the visiting parent is responsible for the pick up and delivery of the children.” Id. at 207 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Forbes v. Warren
neutral
2 sentences1957In the effort to escape from the arbitrary rule laid down by the common law as to the father’s right, the danger is lest the pendulum swing too far, under modern decisions, the other way.” In the more recent case of Forbes v. Warren, 184 Miss. 526 , 186 So. 325 , Warren, the father of a minor girl fourteen years of age, brought a habeas corpus proceeding in the Chancery Court of Marion County against the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. A. S. Forbes, the maternal grandparents of the child, to recover her custody. 1957In the effort to escape from the arbitrary rule laid down by the common law as to the father’s right, the danger is lest the pendulum swing too far, under modern decisions, the other way.” In the more recent case of Forbes v. Warren, 184 Miss. 526 , 186 So. 325 , Warren, the father of a minor girl fourteen years of age, brought a habeas corpus proceeding in the Chancery Court of Marion County against the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. A. S. Forbes, the maternal grandparents of the child, to recover her custody. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.