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.
21 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2004As this Court stated in Thomas v. State, 812 So.2d 1010, 1014 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.2001), “[w]e invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury.” (citing Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 566 , 132 So. 563, 564 (1931)). 2004As this Court stated in Thomas v. State, 812 So.2d 1010, 1014 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.2001), “[w]e invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury.” (citing Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 566 , 132 So. 563, 564 (1931)). | 3 | 14 |
Franklin Fitzpatrick v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2017“A defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial creates a procedural bar 11 that prohibits appellate review of the issue, unless there is plain error.” Fitzpatrick v. State, 175 So. 3d 515, 522 (¶31) (Miss. 2015) (reh’g denied Oct. 15, 2015) (citation omitted). 2017“A defendant’s failure to object to a jury instruction at trial creates a procedural bar 11 that prohibits appellate review of the issue, unless there is plain error.” Fitzpatrick v. State, 175 So. 3d 515, 522 (¶31) (Miss. 2015) (reh’g denied Oct. 15, 2015) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Pittman v. Stategreen2 sentences1998We can only presume Gray wishes to direct the Court's attention to the rule stated in Pittman v. State, 297 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss.1974), that holds instructions are only to be given where they are applicable to the facts developed in the case. 1996We can only presume Gray wishes to direct the Court's attention to the rule stated in Pittman v. State, 297 So. 2d 888, 893 (Miss. 1974), that holds instructions are only to be given where they are applicable to the facts developed in the case. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2004As this Court stated in Thomas v. State, 812 So.2d 1010, 1014 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App.2001), “[w]e invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury.” (citing Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561, 566 , 132 So. 563, 564 (1931)). | 1 | 1 |
Bingham v. Stategreen1 sentence1986As we said in Watson v. State, 465 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1985), “The mere fact that there is an even balance of one prosecuting witness for the state and one defense witness for the defense, the defendant, does not prevent the jury from weighing the credibility of each, in deciding the issue.” In Bingham v. State, 434 So.2d 220, 226 (Miss.1983), we said “We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fac | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Stategreen1 sentence1986As we said in Watson v. State, 465 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1985), “The mere fact that there is an even balance of one prosecuting witness for the state and one defense witness for the defense, the defendant, does not prevent the jury from weighing the credibility of each, in deciding the issue.” In Bingham v. State, 434 So.2d 220, 226 (Miss.1983), we said “We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fac | 1 | 1 |
Cooley v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614 (Miss.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hankins v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974), it was said: In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561 , 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury. 1988In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1974), the Court said: In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561 , 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury. ( 159 Miss. at 566 , 132 So. at 564 ). | 8 | 1981–2001 |
Sadler v. State
green
2 sentences1983In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss. 1974), it was said: In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561 , 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury. ( 159 Miss. at 566 , 132 So. at 564 ) We conclude there was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury and we decline to intrude into the fact-find 1983In Hankins v. State, 288 So.2d 866 (Miss.1974), it was said: In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561 , 132 So. 563 (1931), we stated: We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury. (159 Miss, at 466, 132 So. at 564 ) We conclude there was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury and we decline to intrude into the fact-finding o | 6 | 1982–2001 |
Wadford v. State
green
2 sentences1998Wadford, 385 So.2d at 954 . ś 219. 1996Wadford, 385 So. 2d at 954 . ¶219. | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Thornton v. State
green
1 sentence1976In Evans v. State, 159 Miss. 561 , 132 So. 563 (1931), this Court said: `We invite the attention of the bar to the fact that we do not reverse criminal cases where there is a straight issue of fact, or a conflict in the facts; juries are impaneled for the very purpose of passing upon such questions of disputed fact, and we do not intend to invade the province and prerogative of the jury. ' 159 Miss. at 566 , 132 So. at 564 . [Emphasis added]." 313 So.2d at 18 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Buckler v. State
neutral
2 sentences1956In Buckler v. State, 173 Miss. 350 , 161 So. 683 , and in Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814 , 176 So. 743 , the late Chief Justice Smith Avrote separate opinions, dissenting in part in the former, and in both called to the attention of the bar that the Avrit of error coram nobis Avas obsolete and that a simple motion was the proper procedure Avhen a judgment Avas sought to be vacated, and in so doing in the latter case said: “No Avrit of error coram nobis is necessary, as this Court has more than once said; and if members of the bar .... would only remember and act on this, much trouble would b 1956In Buckler v. State, 173 Miss. 350 , 161 So. 683 , and in Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814 , 176 So. 743 , the late Chief Justice Smith Avrote separate opinions, dissenting in part in the former, and in both called to the attention of the bar that the Avrit of error coram nobis Avas obsolete and that a simple motion was the proper procedure Avhen a judgment Avas sought to be vacated, and in so doing in the latter case said: “No Avrit of error coram nobis is necessary, as this Court has more than once said; and if members of the bar .... would only remember and act on this, much trouble would b | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Mitchell v. State
green
2 sentences1956In Buckler v. State, 173 Miss. 350 , 161 So. 683 , and in Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814 , 176 So. 743 , the late Chief Justice Smith Avrote separate opinions, dissenting in part in the former, and in both called to the attention of the bar that the Avrit of error coram nobis Avas obsolete and that a simple motion was the proper procedure Avhen a judgment Avas sought to be vacated, and in so doing in the latter case said: “No Avrit of error coram nobis is necessary, as this Court has more than once said; and if members of the bar .... would only remember and act on this, much trouble would b 1956In Buckler v. State, 173 Miss. 350 , 161 So. 683 , and in Mitchell v. State, 179 Miss. 814 , 176 So. 743 , the late Chief Justice Smith Avrote separate opinions, dissenting in part in the former, and in both called to the attention of the bar that the Avrit of error coram nobis Avas obsolete and that a simple motion was the proper procedure Avhen a judgment Avas sought to be vacated, and in so doing in the latter case said: “No Avrit of error coram nobis is necessary, as this Court has more than once said; and if members of the bar .... would only remember and act on this, much trouble would b | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Runnels v. State
green
2 sentences1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. 1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Roux v. City of Gulfport
green
2 sentences1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. 1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Saucier v. State
neutral
2 sentences1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. 1950Runnels v. State, 96 Miss. 92 , 50 So. 499 ; Roux v. City of Gulfport, 97 Miss. 559 , 52 So. 485 ; Saucier v. State, 102 Miss. 647 , 59 So. 858 , Ann. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.