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 1 courts 1940–1994 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gullett v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See also Gullett v. State, 523 So. 2d 296, 300 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences1994The Thompson court looked to the rule announced in Brown and reaffirmed its position stating, "where the declarant is not available his out-of-court declarations against penal interest are not sufficiently trustworthy to justify the Court in making an exception to the hearsay rule." Thompson, 309 So. 2d at 535 . 1979We hold, therefore, that the validity of the rule announced in Brown was not undermined by the Chambers opinion, and where the declarant is not available his out-of-court declarations against penal interest are not sufficiently trustworthy to justify the Court in making an exception to the hearsay rule." 309 So.2d at 535 . | 2 | 1979–1994 |
Fermo v. State
green
2 sentences1988Typical of the Thompson-Lee-Fermo holdings is the statement in Fermo that: We hold, therefore, that ... where the declarant is not available his out of court declarations against penal interest are not sufficiently trustworthy to justify the court in making an exception to the hearsay rule. 370 So.2d at 934 . 1986Typical of the Thompson-Lee-Fermo holdings is the statement in Fermo that: We hold, therefore, that ... where the declarant is not available his out of court declarations against penal interest are not sufficiently trustworthy to justify the court in making an exception to the hearsay rule. 370 So.2d at 934 . | 2 | 1986–1988 |
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co.
neutral
2 sentences1940The pertinent provisions of the fidelity bond in question are fully set forth in the opinion of this Court on the former appeal, 169 Miss. 196 , 150 So. 205 , supra, reference to which is here made to avoid the necessity of again reciting the same in detail; and from which it will be observed that the only conditions precedent to liability is that a loss be sustained, that the claim and proof of loss be filed with the home office of the Indemnity Com *517 pany, and that the suit be filed within twelve months (12) after the making of the claim, and the filing of the proof of loss. 1940The pertinent provisions of the fidelity bond in question are fully set forth in the opinion of this Court on the former appeal, 169 Miss. 196 , 150 So. 205 , supra, reference to which is here made to avoid the necessity of again reciting the same in detail; and from which it will be observed that the only conditions precedent to liability is that a loss be sustained, that the claim and proof of loss be filed with the home office of the Indemnity Com *517 pany, and that the suit be filed within twelve months (12) after the making of the claim, and the filing of the proof of loss. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.