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.
16 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lockett v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss.1992). ¶ 8. 2002Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss.1992). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Dabneygreen1 sentence2019See In re Estate of Dabney , 740 So.2d at 921 (citing Croft , 115 So.2d at 686 ). | 1 | 1 |
Croft v. Aldergreen1 sentence2019See In re Estate of Dabney , 740 So.2d at 921 (citing Croft , 115 So.2d at 686 ). | 1 | 1 |
Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of Illinoisgreen2 sentences2017We note that the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon absolute restrictions on advertising regarding certifications. "[T]he States may not place an absplute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, e.g., a listing of areas of practice, if the information also may be presented in way that is not deceptive.” Id. at 203 , 102 S.Ct. 929 ; see also Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 , 110 S.Ct. 2281 , 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) (plurality opinion) (finding an absolute bar on lawyer advertising a certification violated the First 2017We note that the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon absolute restrictions on advertising regarding certifications. "[T]he States may not place an absplute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, e.g., a listing of areas of practice, if the information also may be presented in way that is not deceptive.” Id. at 203 , 102 S.Ct. 929 ; see also Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 , 110 S.Ct. 2281 , 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) (plurality opinion) (finding an absolute bar on lawyer advertising a certification violated the First | 1 | 1 |
American Academy Of Pain Management v. Josephgreen2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 83 (1990) (plurality opinion) (finding an absolute bar on lawyer advertising a certification violated the First Amendment, where there was no showing that the burden on the bar association of distinguishing between certifying boards that are bona fide and those that are bogus would be significant, and where there was “a complete absence of any evidence of deception in the present case.”); see also American Acad. of Pain Mgmt. v. Joseph, 353 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (California legislature could regulate which medical professionals could use the designation “board certified” by determin 2017We note that the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon absolute restrictions on advertising regarding certifications. "[T]he States may not place an absplute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, e.g., a listing of areas of practice, if the information also may be presented in way that is not deceptive.” Id. at 203 , 102 S.Ct. 929 ; see also Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 , 110 S.Ct. 2281 , 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) (plurality opinion) (finding an absolute bar on lawyer advertising a certification violated the First | 1 | 1 |
Buck v. Lowndes County School Dist.green1 sentence2006Dist., 761 So.2d 144, 147 (¶ 17) (Miss.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Nations v. Stategreen1 sentence1995He cites Nations v. State, 481 So.2d 760, 761 (Miss.1985), to support his position. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CALHOUN CTY. BD. OF ED. v. Hamblin
green
2 sentences1983Although the proof is inconclusive, it cannot be said that the reason was not demonstrable and not supported by fact. 360 So.2d at 1240 . 1983Once the Superintendent has given a demonstrable reason for nonreemployment (before the hearing), the burden at the hearing is upon the employee to prove affirmatively and conclusively that the reasons relied upon by the School Board have no basis in fact. [ 360 So.2d at 1240 ]. | 3 | 1983–1983 |
Smith v. State
red
2 sentences2004Id. at 100 . 2002Id. at 100 . | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Haldeman v. Martin
green
2 sentences1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. 1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Maxler v. Hawk
neutral
2 sentences1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. 1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler
green
2 sentences1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. 1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Fouts v. Nance
green
2 sentences1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. 1980Fouts v. Nance, 55 Okl. 266 , 155 P. 610 , L.R.A. 1916E, 283 ; Maxler v. Hawk, 233 Pa. 316 , 82 A. 251 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 559; Haldeman v. Martin, 205 Iowa 302 , 217 N.W. 851 ; Union Trust & Savings Bank v. Tyler, 161 Mich. 561 , 126 N.W. 713 , 137 Am. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
In Re RMJ
green
1 sentence2017We note that the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon absolute restrictions on advertising regarding certifications. "[T]he States may not place an absplute prohibition on certain types of potentially misleading information, e.g., a listing of areas of practice, if the information also may be presented in way that is not deceptive.” Id. at 203 , 102 S.Ct. 929 ; see also Peel v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm’n of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 , 110 S.Ct. 2281 , 110 L.Ed.2d 83 (1990) (plurality opinion) (finding an absolute bar on lawyer advertising a certification violated the First | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Corley v. State
green
1 sentence2003Corley, 584 So.2d at 772 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Childs v. State
neutral
2 sentences2002Bryant refers this Court to Childs v. State , 146 Miss. 794 , 112 So. 23 (1927). 2002Bryant refers this Court to Childs v. State , 146 Miss. 794 , 112 So. 23 (1927). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wheatley v. Abbott
neutral
1 sentence1945Appellant also cites the old case of Wheatly v. Abbott, 32 Miss. 343 , to the effect that “the mere declaration of the donor, that he has made a gift of a personal chattel, unaccompanied by acts showing a delivery, or an absolute parting with all dominion and interest in it, are insufficient *194 to establsli a valid gift; and especially where his acts are inconsistent with his having parted with the possession and control over the chattel. ’ ’ In that case, however, an examination will show that after making the' statements, the alleged donor moved this chattel, which was a slave, from place | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.