18 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Further, “[n]ot every motion for post-conviction relief must be afforded a full adversarial hearing by the trial court.” Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). 2012“Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.” Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (If 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). | 8 | 8 |
Hebert v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.” Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (If 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). 2012“Not every motion for post-conviction relief ... must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.” Hebert v. State, 864 So.2d 1041, 1045 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). | 3 | 6 |
Potts v. Stategreen2 sentences2009The movant must demonstrate, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle the movant to relief." Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Potts v. State, 755 So.2d 1196, 1198 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). 2009The movant must demonstrate, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle the movant to relief.” Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Potts v. State, 755 So.2d 1196, 1198 (115) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Santiagogreen2 sentences2018"The movant must prove, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of such facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle him to relief." Id. "[A] trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for PCR, without having held an evidentiary hearing, when it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief ...." State v. Santiago , 773 So.2d 921 , 923-24 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. 2018“The movant must prove, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of such facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle him to relief.” Id. “[A] trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for PCR, without having held an evidentiary hearing, when it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . .” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 923-24 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. | 1 | 2 |
Sage v. McElveengreen1 sentence2021As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has summarized, “a witness who testifies at an adversarial hearing is absolutely immune from suit based upon that testimony.” Sage v. McElveen, No. 94-40451, 53 F.3d 1280 , 1995 WL 295869, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished). | 1 | 1 |
Elliott v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Id. at 709 (¶25). | 1 | 1 |
Hoyt v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“A trial judge may dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing ‘if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.’ ” Hoyt v. State, 952 So.2d 1016, 1022 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whatley v. State
green
2 sentences2018"The movant must prove, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of such facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle him to relief." Id. "[A] trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for PCR, without having held an evidentiary hearing, when it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief ...." State v. Santiago , 773 So.2d 921 , 923-24 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. 2018“The movant must prove, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of such facts that, if proven at the hearing, would entitle him to relief.” Id. “[A] trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for PCR, without having held an evidentiary hearing, when it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . .” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 923-24 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Meeks v. State
green
2 sentences2014Accordingly, “[n]ot every motion for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court must be afforded a full adversarial hearing.” Id. 2013Further, “[n]ot every motion for post-conviction relief must be afforded a full adversarial hearing by the trial court.” Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 795 So.2d 589, 590 (¶3) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Holifield v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
green
1 sentence2021As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has summarized, “a witness who testifies at an adversarial hearing is absolutely immune from suit based upon that testimony.” Sage v. McElveen, No. 94-40451, 53 F.3d 1280 , 1995 WL 295869, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
KNOTTS BY KNOTTS v. Hassell
green
1 sentence2021Indeed, the privilege is so strong that our Supreme Court has even barred civil actions when they are “based upon perjured testimony.” Knotts, 659 So. 2d at 890 . 3 The case was also filed far beyond the statute of limitations. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Perkins v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1990In a special concurring opinion in Perkins, supra, joined by four Justices, we said that [I]n this case there was manifestly no need for Perkins to file an adversarial claim of heirship with an administrator, because she was the administratrix herself, purporting and claiming to be Taylor’s sole and only heir-at-law and sole and only party in interest in his estate. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.