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.
20 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2018And, although the State presents a Daubert - style defense 15 to Dr. Stevens's affidavit, his affidavit is not a "sham." Wright , 577 So.2d at 390 ("[W]here an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required."). ¶ 39. 2018And, although the State presents a Daubert -style defense 4 to Dr. Stevens's affidavit, his affidavit is not a "sham." Wright , 577 So.2d at 390 ("[W]here an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required."). ¶ 32. | 10 | 11 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122-23 (¶ 10) (Miss. 1999) (“[Wjhere an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.”) (citations omitted). 2 Moreover, during the guilty plea hearing, Davis acknowledged that he was satisfied with the performance of his lawyer. 2007Both this Court and our supreme court have held, "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Sandifer v. State, 799 So.2d 914, 917 (8) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Young, 731 So.2d at 1122-23 (10)). | 4 | 6 |
Vielee v. Stategreen2 sentences2023The Court further stated that “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, . . . a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary[,] to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.” Id. at 1046 (¶15). 2011Lewis makes various other allegations, but they are supported only by assertion in his brief. 4 The supreme court has stated that, in cases involving post-conviction relief, “where a party offers only his affidavit, then his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit.” Vielee v. State, 653 So.2d 920, 922 (Miss.1995). ¶ 16. | 2 | 2 |
Sandifer v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Further, this Court noted, “Both this Court and our supreme court have held, ‘where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.’” Id. at 1022 (¶22) (emphasis added) (quoting Sandifer v. State, 799 So. 2d 914, 917 (¶8) (Miss. 2007Both this Court and our supreme court have held, "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Sandifer v. State, 799 So.2d 914, 917 (8) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Young, 731 So.2d at 1122-23 (10)). | 2 | 2 |
Neal v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Moreover, where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required."); see also Neal v. State , 525 So.2d 1279 , 1281 n.2 (Miss. 1987) ("Post-conviction actions employ many of the procedural trappings of a civil action.... 2018Moreover, where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required."); see also Neal v. State , 525 So.2d 1279 , 1281 n.2 (Miss. 1987) ("Post-conviction actions employ many of the procedural trappings of a civil action.... | 2 | 2 |
Gable v. Stategreen2 sentences2012And “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the af-fiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.” Gable v. State, 748 So.2d 703, 705-06 (¶ 8) (Miss.1999). ¶ 16. 2012And “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.” Gable v. State, 748 So.2d 703, 705-06 (¶ 8) (Miss.1999). ¶ 16. | 2 | 2 |
Marshall v. Stategreen2 sentences1999However, on several *706 occasions we have also held that "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Young, 731 So.2d at 1122-23 ( quoting Wright v. State, 577 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted); Marshall v. State, 680 So.2d 794, 795 (Miss.1996) ( citing Campbell v. State, 611 So.2d 209, 210 (Miss.1992))). ¶ 9. 1998However, on several occasions we have also held that "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Young, 731 So. 2d at 1122 -23 (quoting Wright v. State, 577 So. 2d 387, 390 (Miss. 1991) (citations omitted); Marshall v. State, 680 So. 2d 794, 795 (Miss. 1996) (citing Campbell v. State, 611 So. 2d 209, 210 (Miss. 1992)). ¶9. | 2 | 2 |
Campbell v. Stategreen2 sentences1999However, on several *706 occasions we have also held that "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Young, 731 So.2d at 1122-23 ( quoting Wright v. State, 577 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss.1991) (citations omitted); Marshall v. State, 680 So.2d 794, 795 (Miss.1996) ( citing Campbell v. State, 611 So.2d 209, 210 (Miss.1992))). ¶ 9. 1998However, on several occasions we have also held that "where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required." Young, 731 So. 2d at 1122 -23 (quoting Wright v. State, 577 So. 2d 387, 390 (Miss. 1991) (citations omitted); Marshall v. State, 680 So. 2d 794, 795 (Miss. 1996) (citing Campbell v. State, 611 So. 2d 209, 210 (Miss. 1992)). ¶9. | 2 | 2 |
McCray v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Although Smith provided affidavits from her sister and father that stated she was high while at the hearing, as we stated above “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, . . . a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary[,] to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.” McCray, 107 So. 3d at 1046 (¶15). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albert E. Albertson v. T.J. Stevenson & Company, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Stevenson & Co., 749 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1984)); Perma Research & Dev. 1995Stevenson & Co., 749 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1984)); Perma Research & Dev. | 2 | 1995–1997 |
Blackledge v. Allison
green
2 sentences2007"Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). 2007"Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 , 97 S.Ct. 1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.