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.
29 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sealed v. Sealedgreen2 sentences2008AT & T, 720 So.2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2006). i. Extent to which Jennings, as distinguished from his counsel, was personally responsible for the delay. ¶ 28. 2006AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2006). 10 Citing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hensarling v. Holly, 2007 Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.green2 sentences2008Ultimately, while "[t]o exclude evidence is within purview of the court . . . determinations to exclude evidence before the challenging party has an opportunity to develop the record are unfair and improper." Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 472 F.Supp.2d 604, 611-12 (D.Del.2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted). ¶ 37. 2005Ultimately, while “[t]o exclude evidence is within purview of the court . . . determinations to exclude evidence before the challenging party has an opportunity to develop the record are unfair and improper.” Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 472 F.Supp.2d 604, 611-12 (D.Del. 2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted). ¶37. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limitsgreen2 sentences1997See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmers Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss. 1979). 1993See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmer's Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 633, 625 (Miss. 1979). ¶9. | 2 | 2 |
City of Greenville v. Farmers Inc.green2 sentences1997See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmers Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss. 1979). 1993See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmer's Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 633, 625 (Miss. 1979). ¶9. | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See Jones v. State, 228 Miss. 296 , 87 So.2d 573 (1956); Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So.2d 44 (1951)." 247 So.2d at 691 . 1977See Jones v. State, 228 Miss. 296 , 87 So.2d 573 (1956); Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So.2d 44 (1951)." 247 So.2d at 691 . | 2 | 2 |
Brandy Nicole Williams v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2022We acknowledge “[f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in [her] own defense.” Williams v. State, 174 So. 3d 275, 281 (¶31) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Patrick Bernard Giles v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2016“The general rule is that for a confession to be admissible it must have been given voluntarily, and not as the result of any promises, threats[,] or other inducements.” Giles v. State, 187 So.3d 116, 125 (¶ 31) (Miss. 2016) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Barrett v. Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson & Lee, LLCgreen2 sentences2013In Barrett v. Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson & Lee, LLC, 27 So.3d 363, 370 (Miss.2009), this Court reiterated that a trial court “has inherent power to impose sanctions in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” And we stated: Of particular relevance in this case, Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 1.10 provides that “no person shall undertake to discuss with or in the presence or hearing of the judge the law or the facts or alleged facts of any case then pending in the court or likely to be instituted therein, ... nor attempt in any manner, ... to influen 2013In Barrett v. Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson & Lee, LLC, 27 So.3d 363, 370 (Miss.2009), this Court reiterated that a trial court “has inherent power to impose sanctions in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” And we stated: Of particular relevance in this case, Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 1.10 provides that “no person shall undertake to discuss with or in the presence or hearing of the judge the law or the facts or alleged facts of any case then pending in the court or likely to be instituted therein, ... nor attempt in any manner, ... to influen | 1 | 1 |
Hine v. Anchor Lake Property Owners Ass'n, Inc.green1 sentence2012“While ‘aggravating factors’ are not required, the presence of such factors strengthens the case for dismissal under Rule 41(b).” Id.; see also Hine, 911 So.2d at 1006 (¶ 22) (“The presence of aggravating factors is not necessary to sustain a dismissal under Rule 41(b). | 1 | 1 |
Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfrogreen1 sentence1997See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmers Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Screws v. Parkergreen1 sentence1993See, Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits of Hattiesburg, 588 So.2d 814 . 819-21 (Miss. 1991); City of Greenville v. Farmer's Inc., 513 So.2d 932, 934 (Miss. 1987); Extension of Boundaries of Horn Lake v. Renfro, 365 So.2d 633, 625 (Miss. 1979). ¶9. | 1 | 1 |
Bolton v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Bolton v. State, 530 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Miss. 1988); Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. at 691 , 102 S.Ct. at 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 320 (State's reliance on the giving of Miranda warnings as a significant intervening event held "misplaced"); see also, Dycus v. State, 396 So.2d 23, 27 (Miss. 1981) (giving of Miranda warnings is alone an insignificant event in the causal chain). | 1 | 1 |
Dycus v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Bolton v. State, 530 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Miss. 1988); Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. at 691 , 102 S.Ct. at 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 320 (State's reliance on the giving of Miranda warnings as a significant intervening event held "misplaced"); see also, Dycus v. State, 396 So.2d 23, 27 (Miss. 1981) (giving of Miranda warnings is alone an insignificant event in the causal chain). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1992Bolton v. State, 530 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Miss. 1988); Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. at 691 , 102 S.Ct. at 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 320 (State's reliance on the giving of Miranda warnings as a significant intervening event held "misplaced"); see also, Dycus v. State, 396 So.2d 23, 27 (Miss. 1981) (giving of Miranda warnings is alone an insignificant event in the causal chain). 1992Bolton v. State, 530 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Miss. 1988); Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. at 691 , 102 S.Ct. at 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 320 (State's reliance on the giving of Miranda warnings as a significant intervening event held "misplaced"); see also, Dycus v. State, 396 So.2d 23, 27 (Miss. 1981) (giving of Miranda warnings is alone an insignificant event in the causal chain). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Hilbungreen1 sentence1991Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d 856, 872 (Miss. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thurmond v. State
green
2 sentences1956“It is not sufficient that the statement was made in the presence of accused against whom.it is sought to be used, even though he remained silent; but it is further necessary that the circumstances should have been such as to call for a denial on his part, and to afford him an opportunity to make it.” In Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So. 2d 44 , the Court said: “The doctrine that accusatory statements made in the presence and hearing of the defendant are admissible as confessions implied from silence is well established in our jurisprudence as an exception to the hearsay rule. * * * It 1956“It is not sufficient that the statement was made in the presence of accused against whom.it is sought to be used, even though he remained silent; but it is further necessary that the circumstances should have been such as to call for a denial on his part, and to afford him an opportunity to make it.” In Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So. 2d 44 , the Court said: “The doctrine that accusatory statements made in the presence and hearing of the defendant are admissible as confessions implied from silence is well established in our jurisprudence as an exception to the hearsay rule. * * * It | 3 | 1956–1977 |
Holder v. Orange Grove Medical Specialties, P.A.
green
2 sentences2017“The Court also may consider aggravating factors or actual prejudice to the defendant, and the presence of the factors or prejudice, though not necessary, may strengthen a case for dismissal.” Id. 2016Id. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Sam ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KROGER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
green
2 sentences2008AT & T, 720 So.2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2006). i. Extent to which Jennings, as distinguished from his counsel, was personally responsible for the delay. ¶ 28. 2006AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2006). 10 Citing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hensarling v. Holly, 2007 Miss. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Days Inn
green
2 sentences2008AT & T, 720 So.2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2006). i. Extent to which Jennings, as distinguished from his counsel, was personally responsible for the delay. ¶ 28. 2006AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320 ); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2006). 10 Citing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hensarling v. Holly, 2007 Miss. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences2001Indeed, it was Justice Bowling's view, that even the presence of the defense instructions on the subject did not sufficiently ameliorate the problem with the State's instruction. 434 So.2d at 212 . 1997Indeed, it was Justice Bowling's view, that even the presence of the defense instructions on the subject did not sufficiently ameliorate the problem with the State's instruction. 434 So. 2d at 212 . | 2 | 1997–2001 |
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences1998The State is required to strictly adhere to the ruling in Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 [(1968)] ... and its progeny, specifically, no verbal or written statement of any non-testifying defendant in this case, which is introduced into evidence or referred to at trial with the jury present, shall contain any reference to Robert Strahan, and all existing references to Robert Strahan contained in any such statements shall be redacted and removed from the same. ¶ 10. 1998The State is required to strictly adhere to the ruling in Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 [(1968)] ... and its progeny, specifically, no verbal or written statement of any non-testifying defendant in this case, which is introduced into evidence or referred to at trial with the jury present, shall contain any reference to Robert Strahan, and all existing references to Robert Strahan contained in any such statements shall be redacted and removed from the same. ¶ 10. | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Cox v. Cox
green
1 sentence2021“While ‘aggravating factors’ are not required, the presence of such factors strengthens the case for dismissal under Rule 41(b).” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
O'NEAL v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2006Smith, 727 F.Supp. at 237 ; O’Neal, 653 F.Supp. at 722 . ¶ 16. 2006O’Neal, 653 F.Supp. at 722 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Smith
green
2 sentences2006Smith, 727 F.Supp. at 237 ; O’Neal, 653 F.Supp. at 722 . ¶ 16. 2006The Smith court referred to Black’s Law Dictionary to support its contention that the verb “witness” does not have a presence requirement but primarily means to subscribe for the purpose of attesting authenticity. 6 Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bayse v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 1053 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Abram v. State
green
1 sentence1992Abram v. State, 523 So.2d 1018 (Miss. 1988). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bickcom v. State
green
1 sentence1987In Bickcom, supra, the Court said: We have held in different cases that jurors cannot impeach their own verdict by testifying as to the motives and influences which affected their deliberations. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Duck v. State
neutral
2 sentences1977In Duck v. State, 247 So.2d 689 (Miss. 1971), this Court said: "The doctrine of accusatory statements made in the presence and hearing of the defendant is admissible, as admissions implied from silence are well established in this state. 1977See Jones v. State, 228 Miss. 296 , 87 So.2d 573 (1956); Thurmond v. State, 212 Miss. 36 , 53 So.2d 44 (1951)." 247 So.2d at 691 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Spivey v. State
green
1 sentence1951Spivey v. State, 58 Miss. 858 ; Anderson v. State, 171 Miss. 41 , 156 So. 645 ; Page v. State, 208 Miss. 347 , 44 So. (2d) 459 ; Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. IV, Section 1071; McKelvey on Evidence, (5th Ed.), Section 128; Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. I, Section 199; Wharton, Criminal Evidence, Vol. II, Section 656; Underhill, Criminal Evidence, (3rd Ed.), Section 208; 31 C. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences1951Spivey v. State, 58 Miss. 858 ; Anderson v. State, 171 Miss. 41 , 156 So. 645 ; Page v. State, 208 Miss. 347 , 44 So. (2d) 459 ; Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. IV, Section 1071; McKelvey on Evidence, (5th Ed.), Section 128; Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. I, Section 199; Wharton, Criminal Evidence, Vol. II, Section 656; Underhill, Criminal Evidence, (3rd Ed.), Section 208; 31 C. 1951Spivey v. State, 58 Miss. 858 ; Anderson v. State, 171 Miss. 41 , 156 So. 645 ; Page v. State, 208 Miss. 347 , 44 So. (2d) 459 ; Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. IV, Section 1071; McKelvey on Evidence, (5th Ed.), Section 128; Greenleaf on Evidence, Vol. I, Section 199; Wharton, Criminal Evidence, Vol. II, Section 656; Underhill, Criminal Evidence, (3rd Ed.), Section 208; 31 C. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Page v. State green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Miller v. State neutral | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Conerly v. State neutral | 1 | 1912–1912 |
| People v. . Koerner green | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.