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.
23 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
ABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doylegreen2 sentences2012However, in ABC Manufacturing Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So.2d 43, 45 (¶ 10) (Miss.1999), the supreme court held that, “[generally, an administrative agency is accorded deference, but when the agency has misapprehended a controlling legal principle, no deference is due, and our review is de novo.” (Citing Smith v. Jackson Constr. 2011However, in ABC Manufacturing Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So.2d 43, 45 (¶ 10) (Miss.1999), the Mississippi Supreme Court held, “[gjenerally, an administrative agency is accorded deference, but when the agency has misapprehended a controlling legal principle, no deference is due, and our review is de novo.” ANALYSIS 1. | 7 | 9 |
Central Electric Power Ass'n v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2017Power Ass'n v. Hicks , 236 Miss. 378 , 110 So.2d 351 , 356 (1959). "[W]hen the agency has misapprehended a controlling legal principle, no deference is due, and our review is de novo." ABC Mfg. 2017Power Ass'n v. Hicks , 236 Miss. 378 , 110 So.2d 351 , 356 (1959). "[W]hen the agency has misapprehended a controlling legal principle, no deference is due, and our review is de novo." ABC Mfg. | 3 | 5 |
Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co.green2 sentences2005Thirdly, the Andersons argue that the supreme court's denial of R & D's petition for an interlocutory appeal rendered the trial court's original order "the law of the case." According to the law of the case doctrine, "whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, as long as there is a similarity of facts." Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So.2d 259, 266-67 (¶ 22) (Miss.1999). 2005Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So.2d 259, 266-67 (Miss. 1999). [3] We find those cases distinguishable. | 3 | 3 |
Drake L. Lewis v. Tonia D. Lewis Pagelgreen2 sentences2023Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So. 3d 162, 174 (¶23) (Miss. 2015). 2019“Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a 8 similarity of facts.” Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So. 3d 162, 174 (¶23) (Miss. 2015). | 2 | 2 |
Gregg v. Natchez Trace Electric Power Ass'ngreen2 sentences2021“When the agency has misapprehended a controlling legal principle, no deference is due, and our review is de novo.” Id. 2017Gregg, 64 So.3d at 475-76 (¶9) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted), DISCUSSION ¶ 9. | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Jackson Const. Co.green2 sentences2012Co., 607 So.2d 1119, 1125 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 24. 2002Co ., 607 So.2d 1119 , 1125 (Miss. 1992). | 1 | 2 |
Fortune v. Lee County Bd. of Sup'rsgreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Travis, 106 So. 3d 320, 326 (¶13) (Miss. 2012) (quoting Fortune v. Lee Cty Bd. of Supervisors, 725 So. 2d 747, 751 (¶6) (Miss.1998); see also Griner, 282 So. 3d at 1250 (¶23-24) (“Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts.”). ¶23. | 1 | 1 |
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Travisgreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Travis, 106 So. 3d 320, 326 (¶13) (Miss. 2012) (quoting Fortune v. Lee Cty Bd. of Supervisors, 725 So. 2d 747, 751 (¶6) (Miss.1998); see also Griner, 282 So. 3d at 1250 (¶23-24) (“Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts.”). ¶23. | 1 | 1 |
DEDEAUX UTILITY CO. v. City of Gulfportgreen1 sentence2012Co., Inc. v. City of Gulfport, 63 So.3d 514, 539 (Miss.2011) (quoting Moeller v. Am. | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.green2 sentences2008Co., 564 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Miss. 1990)), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that "[w]hatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts." [6] I note that Pratt v. Mattison is an unpublished Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion, and I recognize that Rule 35-B(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibits parties from citing unpublished opinions to this Court. 2008Co. , 564 So.2d 1374 , 1376 (Miss. 1990)), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that "[w]hatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts." 6 I note that Pratt v. Mattison is an unpublished Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion, and I recognize that Rule 35-B(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibits parties from citing unpublished opinions to this Court. | 1 | 1 |
Helvering v. Hallockgreen2 sentences1994Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119-21 , 60 S.Ct. 444, 451-52 , 84 L.Ed. 604, 612-13 (1940). 1994Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119-21 , 60 S.Ct. 444, 451-52 , 84 L.Ed. 604, 612-13 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PERS v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2007The law of the case “once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts.” Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Skipper v. South Carolina
green
2 sentences2005Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). [2] The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that whatever was once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. 2005Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 , 106 S.Ct. 1669 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). [2] The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that whatever was once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle
green
1 sentence2000TGX Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So. 2d 991 (¶97) (Miss. 1997). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.