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.
6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Klauk v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Procedural bar notwithstanding, we find that although the trial court erred by failing to conduct a separate reliability hearing for Melissa and Jane and make on-the-record findings about the reliability of their statements, the error was harmless. “[B]oth the 7 Mississippi Supreme Court and this [C]ourt have held the failure to conduct a separate reliability hearing and make an on-the-record finding about the reliability of the statements is error—albeit potentially harmless error.” Webb, 113 So. 3d at 599 (¶23); Rogers v. State, 95 So. 3d 623, 629 (¶19) (Miss. 2012) (applying harmless-error 2012Rogers v. State, 95 So.3d 623, 629 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012) (applying harmless-error analysis when State conceded there was no separate hearing outside the jury’s presence and no reliability finding); Klauk v. State, 940 So.2d 954, 956-57 (¶¶ 6-8) (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Procedural bar notwithstanding, we find that although the trial court erred by failing to conduct a separate reliability hearing for Melissa and Jane and make on-the-record findings about the reliability of their statements, the error was harmless. “[B]oth the 7 Mississippi Supreme Court and this [C]ourt have held the failure to conduct a separate reliability hearing and make an on-the-record finding about the reliability of the statements is error—albeit potentially harmless error.” Webb, 113 So. 3d at 599 (¶23); Rogers v. State, 95 So. 3d 623, 629 (¶19) (Miss. 2012) (applying harmless-error 2012Rogers v. State, 95 So.3d 623, 629 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012) (applying harmless-error analysis when State conceded there was no separate hearing outside the jury’s presence and no reliability finding); Klauk v. State, 940 So.2d 954, 956-57 (¶¶ 6-8) (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Clemons v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Id. at 889 (¶ 23). ¶ 27. 2012Id. at 899 (¶23). ¶27. | 2 | 2 |
Webb v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Procedural bar notwithstanding, we find that although the trial court erred by failing to conduct a separate reliability hearing for Melissa and Jane and make on-the-record findings about the reliability of their statements, the error was harmless. “[B]oth the 7 Mississippi Supreme Court and this [C]ourt have held the failure to conduct a separate reliability hearing and make an on-the-record finding about the reliability of the statements is error—albeit potentially harmless error.” Webb, 113 So. 3d at 599 (¶23); Rogers v. State, 95 So. 3d 623, 629 (¶19) (Miss. 2012) (applying harmless-error | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sheppard v. State
green
2 sentences2014Similarly in Sheppard , the prosecution’s statements were in error because they allowed the jury to believe that, unless they convicted the defendant, “... the prosecutor was going to subject them to personal ridicule, embarrassment, and questioning.” Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 662 . 2012Similarly in Sheppard, the prosecution’s statements were in error because they allowed the jury to believe that, unless 14 they convicted the defendant, “. . . the prosecutor was going to subject them to personal ridicule, embarrassment, and questioning.” Sheppard, 777 So. 2d at 662 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
Albert Lopez Gallego v. United States
green
1 sentence1970One of the best statements of the factors to be considered in the admission of such evidence is found in Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914 (9 Cir.1960), which states: Before a physical object connected with the commission of a crime may properly be admitted in evidence there must be a showing that such object is in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Grenada Bank v. Young
neutral
2 sentences1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . 1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Robinson v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . 1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Prestridge v. Lazar
green
2 sentences1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . 1931Grenada Bank v. Young, 139 Miss. 448, 454 , 104 So. 166 ; Prestridge v. Lazar, 132 Miss. 168 , 95 So. 837 ; Robinson v. Sullivan, 102 Miss. 581 , 59 So. 846 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.