suggestion error in Mississippi

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

1999J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

2003J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 So. 584 , 162 So. 155 .

1975Later in the case of Slush v. Patterson, 201 Miss. 131 , 29 So.2d 311 , overruling suggestion of error in 201 Miss. 113 , 28 So.2d 738 (1947), the conflict between these constitutional amendments was again presented to this Court, and we said: "It is too late now to consider that all those cases were decided without constitutional authority, because reversed by the vote of three instead of four Judges, and we hereby expressly bring forward and affirm what was said on the subject by Smith, C.J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 S

1975Later in the case of Slush v. Patterson, 201 Miss. 131 , 29 So.2d 311 , overruling suggestion of error in 201 Miss. 113 , 28 So.2d 738 (1947), the conflict between these constitutional amendments was again presented to this Court, and we said: "It is too late now to consider that all those cases were decided without constitutional authority, because reversed by the vote of three instead of four Judges, and we hereby expressly bring forward and affirm what was said on the subject by Smith, C.J., in response to the suggestion of error in Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254 , at pages 309 and 310, 160 S

1985In its reply brief, Jesco states: [2] Appellant again attempts to distinguish Grice v. Central Electric Power Assn., 230 Miss. 437 , 92 So.2d 837 (1957), by arguing that no judgment was ever entered by the lower court in that case.

1957The suggestion of error filed herein by the appellee to the opinion heretofore rendered on March 4, 1957, as reported in 92 So. 2d 837 , first challenges our action in holding that this case on the facts was one for decision by a jury and that consequently the trial court erred in sustaining a motion of the appellee, defendant in the lower court, for a judgment non obstante veredicto.

1983We said that no period of time short of the statute of limitations can be used as supporting any laches which will constitute an equitable bar to the suit, citing Waldrop v. Whittington, 213 Miss. 567 , 57 So.2d 298 .

1983We said that no period of time short of the statute of limitations can be used as supporting any laches which will constitute an equitable bar to the suit, citing Waldrop v. Whittington, 213 Miss. 567 , 57 So.2d 298 .

1982The United States Supreme Court said: "Inconsistent testimony as to the confession should not and cannot preclude the accused from raising the due process issue in an appropriate manner... ." [ 332 U.S. at 745 , 68 S.Ct. at 301 ]. *449 On remand, the Mississippi Supreme Court conformed its opinion in Lee with that decision in the following words: As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ([ Lee v. State ] 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So.(2d) 74, 75) "if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herei

1948As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ( 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So. (2d) 74 , 75) “if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herein because of the fact that” his confession was not freely and voluntarily made.

1978At any rate, we have reached the conclusion after a careful consideration of the question now before us that any right growing out of this additional assessment that the taxpayer may have had under *1203 Section 10122, supra, to sue the Commission has been merged into the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Hinds County on certiorari and the judgment of affirmance thereof by this Court; that the judgment then rendered by this Court is binding upon the appellant because of its finality, whether correct or not on the issue of liability involved; that the said judgment existed as a valid as

1948The question now before us on this suggestion of error (and to which our attention has not been specifically directed heretofore on any of the several appeals in suits filed subsequently to the rendition of the decision in Viator v. Stone, infra, as shown in the cases of Viator v. Edwins, sheriff, etc., 195 Miss. 220 , 14 So.2d 212 ; Viator v. Stone, Chairman of State Tax Commsision, 201 Miss. 487 , 29 So.2d 274 , 658, including the original presentation of this one as reported in 33 So.2d 310 and involving the alleged right of the taxpayer to recover the money paid by him pursuant to the fina

1957The appellant contends in its response (1) that under the authority of Inman v. Travelers Insurance Company, 154 Miss. 611 , 122 So. 537 , the motion to retax costs should be deemed a suggestion of error and that the suggestion of error now before the court is a second suggestion of error and cannot be entertained under Rule 14(3) of this Court providing that after a suggestion of error has been sustained or overruled by the Court no further suggestion of error shall be filed by any party; (2) that under Rule 16 of this Court no motion once disposed of or dismissed shall again be heard and tha

1957The appellant contends in its response (1) that under the authority of Inman v. Travelers Insurance Company, 154 Miss. 611 , 122 So. 537 , the motion to retax costs should be deemed a suggestion of error and that the suggestion of error now before the court is a second suggestion of error and cannot be entertained under Rule 14(3) of this Court providing that after a suggestion of error has been sustained or overruled by the Court no further suggestion of error shall be filed by any party; (2) that under Rule 16 of this Court no motion once disposed of or dismissed shall again be heard and tha

1957This exact point was recently decided adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co. (Miss.), 145 So. 731 ; and consequently the suggestion of error, or motion to correct the judgment as it is erroneously styled, must he overruled. ’ ’ It is also contrary to what was said by Judge Griffith in the case of Brock, State Bank Commissioner v. Adler, 180 Miss. 126, 128 , 178 So. 593 , as follows: “Much as we sympathize with appellee as a result of the decision in Adler v. Interstate Trust & Banking Co., 166 Miss. 215 , 146 So. 107 , 87 A. L.

1933This exact point was recently decided adversely to appellant's contention in the case of McIntosh v. Munson Road Machinery Co. (Miss.), 145 So. 731 ; and consequently the suggestion of error, or motion to correct the judgment as it is erroneously styled, must be overruled.

1953This Court has held in The Superior Oil Company v. Foote, 214 Miss. 857 , 59 So. 2d 85 , and in other cases cited in the original opinion and in the majority opinion on the suggestion of error, that under the 1932 and 1936 statutes the board had authority to establish drilling units and that it did establish drilling units.

1953This Court has held in The Superior Oil Company v. Foote, 214 Miss. 857 , 59 So. 2d 85 , and in other cases cited in the original opinion and in the majority opinion on the suggestion of error, that under the 1932 and 1936 statutes the board had authority to establish drilling units and that it did establish drilling units.

1944Eady v. State, 153 Miss. 696 , 122 So. 199 ; State v. Tann, 172 Miss. [162], 167, 158 So. 777 , 159 So. 539 ." Suggestion of error overruled. *Page 571

1929Eady et al. v. State (Miss.), 122 So. 199 , and, for the stronger reason, it will be a much rarer case when the court will entertain a suggestion of error presented on behalf of a party who filed no brief and made no argument on the original submission, and who, up to the time of the decision of the case on appeal, had paid no attention to the appeal. 4 C.J., p. 627, et seq.

1929Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 801 So. 2 ; Bacot v. Holloway, 140 Miss. 120 , 104 So. 696 , 105 So. 739 . *160 Iii the Couret case it was distinctly held that the motion to correct the judgment was, in reality, a suggestion of error, because the court was asked to render a different judgment from that which it had pronounced, and which it had entered on its own minutes; the two being’ in consonance.

1929Co. v. James, 118 Miss. 724 , 801 So. 2 ; Bacot v. Holloway, 140 Miss. 120 , 104 So. 696 , 105 So. 739 . *160 Iii the Couret case it was distinctly held that the motion to correct the judgment was, in reality, a suggestion of error, because the court was asked to render a different judgment from that which it had pronounced, and which it had entered on its own minutes; the two being’ in consonance.

2025Cooner, 118 So. at 707 .

2025It then filed a suggestion of error arguing that this Court was contradicting its precedent because it had previously condemned as champertous the transfer of “an interest in a disputed claim to certain slaves” in Rives v. Weaver, 36 Miss. 374 (1858).

2024It is impossible to escape the conclusion that this judgment conferred upon appellee a vested right.” Stone II, 200 Miss. at 814 , 30 So. 2d at 92. ¶29.

2006Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 55 So.2d 381 (1951), withdrawn by Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 59 So.2d 294 (1952).

2006Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 55 So.2d 381 (1951), withdrawn by Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569 , 59 So.2d 294 (1952).

1999Id. at 1270 . ¶ 19.

1998Decker, 249 Miss. at 10 , 162 *566 So.2d 648.

1995The State argues that the consolidation of the two cases was proper, cites from our sister state of Alabama, the case of Collins v. State, 508 So.2d 295 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), wherein the suggestion of error was argued in consolidation of co-defendants’ cases where defendants’ eases were hostile and their defenses antagonistic.

1984In the case of Paxton v. Baum, 59 Miss. 531 , in the opinion in chief on page 537 this court said: "But, in view of the well-settled rule of the common law that for errors or mistakes a public officer acting judicially or quasi judicially is not liable, it could not have been the purpose of the Legislature to make members of boards of supervisors personally liable for errors or mistakes as to how to act in matters committed to such boards by law, and as to objects for which an appropriation of money is authorized to be made by them." Again on page 539 in the opinion in response to the suggesti

1982The United States Supreme Court said: "Inconsistent testimony as to the confession should not and cannot preclude the accused from raising the due process issue in an appropriate manner... ." [ 332 U.S. at 745 , 68 S.Ct. at 301 ]. *449 On remand, the Mississippi Supreme Court conformed its opinion in Lee with that decision in the following words: As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ([ Lee v. State ] 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So.(2d) 74, 75) "if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herei

1982The United States Supreme Court said: "Inconsistent testimony as to the confession should not and cannot preclude the accused from raising the due process issue in an appropriate manner... ." [ 332 U.S. at 745 , 68 S.Ct. at 301 ]. *449 On remand, the Mississippi Supreme Court conformed its opinion in Lee with that decision in the following words: As will appear from our opinion rendered on the suggestion of error herein ([ Lee v. State ] 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So.(2d) 74, 75) "if the accused had not denied having made any confession at all, we would feel constrained to reverse the conviction herei

1974Later, however, this case came back before the court on a suggestion of error in Williams v. State, 122 Miss. 151 , 84 So. 8 (1920).

1971Ethridge speaking for this Court in banc on suggestion of error in Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 267 (1917) on suggestion of error, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 519 , 520: The names of great judges of the past, who have adorned this court, have been brought into honored review, in the suggestion of error, as great names in the judicial history of this state.

1971Ethridge speaking for this Court in banc on suggestion of error in Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 267 (1917) on suggestion of error, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 519 , 520: The names of great judges of the past, who have adorned this court, have been brought into honored review, in the suggestion of error, as great names in the judicial history of this state.

1971However, in passing upon and overruling the suggestion of error, this Court referred to the American Creosote case, supra, and said: The appellee has cited the case of American Creosote Works of Louisiana v. Harp, 215 Miss. 5 , 60 So.2d 514 , 35 A.L.R.2d 603 , as authority on the question of contributory negligence.

1971However, in passing upon and overruling the suggestion of error, this Court referred to the American Creosote case, supra, and said: The appellee has cited the case of American Creosote Works of Louisiana v. Harp, 215 Miss. 5 , 60 So.2d 514 , 35 A.L.R.2d 603 , as authority on the question of contributory negligence.