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 1914–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lauro v. Laurogreen2 sentences2014As set forth above, in Lauro , the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that since the case was remanded for further consideration of equitable division, the chancellor should be instructed “to revisit the awards of alimony and child support after he has properly classified and divided the marital assets.” Lauro, 847 So.2d at 850 (¶ 17). 2010In Lauro v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843, 850 (¶ 17) (Miss.2003), the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that since the case was remanded for further consideration of equitable division, the chancellor should be instructed “to revisit the awards of alimony and child support after he has properly classified and divided the marital assets.” Thus, since this case has been remanded for further consideration of equitable division of assets and periodic alimony, on remand the chancellor will have all the tools of marital dissolution available: equitable division, lump-sum alimony, and periodic alimony. | 2 | 2 |
SNc v. JRD, JR.green2 sentences2008To support their argument that the chancellor committed error by failing to follow, or properly acknowledge, the recommendation of the GAL, the Palmers cite S.N.C. v. J.R.D., Jr., 755 So.2d 1077, 1082 (Miss.2000). 2008To support their argument that the chancellor committed error by failing to follow, or properly acknowledge, the recommendation of the GAL, the Palmers cite S.N.C. v. J.R.D., Jr., 755 So.2d 1077, 1082 (Miss.2000). | 2 | 2 |
Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc.green2 sentences1996See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc., 385 So.2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co., Inc., 300 Ark. 44 , 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363 , 1367 (9th Cir.1990). 1989See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc. 385 So. 2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co. Inc., 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (Ark. 1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co.green2 sentences1996See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc., 385 So.2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co., Inc., 300 Ark. 44 , 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363 , 1367 (9th Cir.1990). 1996See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc., 385 So.2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co., Inc., 300 Ark. 44 , 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363 , 1367 (9th Cir.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Larson v. Dumkegreen2 sentences1996See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc., 385 So.2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co., Inc., 300 Ark. 44 , 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363 , 1367 (9th Cir.1990). 1989See: Bruno v. Southeastern Services, Inc. 385 So. 2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1980); Brandon v. Brandon Construction Co. Inc., 776 S.W.2d 349, 353 (Ark. 1989); Larson v. Dumke, 900 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir. 1990). | 1 | 2 |
Holleman v. Hollemangreen1 sentence2017As support.for his argument, Mr. Shumake relies on Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90, 93 (Miss. 1988), in which the Court held that a chancery court may not impose a lien to secure the payment of alimony unless such a lien specifically was requested in the pleadings. | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Hopkinsgreen1 sentence2011See Hamilton v. Hopkins, 834 So.2d 695, 700 (¶ 16) (Miss.2003) (Recognizing that parties may contractually provide that in the event of a dispute, the losing party will be charged with paying attorney’s fees.). | 1 | 1 |
Cheatham v. Cheathamgreen1 sentence2003The factors for the chancellor to consider in deciding whether to award lump sum alimony were announced in Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Gillespie v. Gillespiegreen1 sentence2001To obtain a modification in child support there must be a "substantial and material change in the circumstances of one of the interested parties arising subsequent to the entry of the decree sought to be modified." Gillespie v. Gillespie, 594 So.2d 620, 623 (Miss.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2007Sanders, 819 So.2d at 1277 (quoting Dethlefs, 458 So.2d at 717 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sanders v. Chamblee
green
1 sentence2007Sanders, 819 So.2d at 1277 (quoting Dethlefs, 458 So.2d at 717 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Simmons v. Bank of Mississippi
green
1 sentence1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McKee v. McKee
green
1 sentence1998Mr. Grice further complains that based upon the seven factors for determining the amount of an attorney's fee which the Mississippi Supreme Court established in McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss.1982), Ms. Grice's counsel's testimony about the nature of his services in this case was too vague and indefinite to support the chancellor's award of his fee in the amount of $7,000 and his expenses in the amount of $1,057. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Thomas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence1996Young and City argue that the record is devoid of any "credible evidence that Burt Young violated any legally recognized duty to the plaintiff." Relevant to this assignment is the fact that in Thomas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 796 F. Supp. 231 (S.D.Miss. 1992) (Judge Tom S. Lee), the district court held: In addition to their claim for the $10,000.00 uninsured motorist benefits provided by the Joiner Buick policy, plaintiffs contend in count 2 of their complaint that the State Farm agent responsible for "selecting" automobile insurance coverage for the Joiners negligentl | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Stephens v. Moore
neutral
2 sentences1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . 1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Todd v. Todd
green
2 sentences1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . 1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
McIntosh v. Munson Road MacHinery Co.
neutral
2 sentences1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . 1953McIntosh v. Monson Road Machinery Co., et al., 167 Miss. 546 , 145 So. 731 ; Todd v. Todd, 197 Miss. 819 , 20 So. 2d 827 ; and Stephens, et al. v. Moore, et al., 214 Miss. 760 , 59 So. 2d 346 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Whitehead v. Kirk
green
1 sentence1914The following, taken from the brief, gives counsel’s contention: “Under the doctrine announced in the Whitehead case, 61 So. 737 , it would have been error to allow the wives of these parties to testify as to the sanity of the testator, and, following the rule laid down in the case, we are of the opinion that since the husband and wife are of 'one flesh,’ and it would he error to permit one to testify, it would be certainly error to permit the other to do so.” We do not see anything in section 1917 of the Code of 1906 providing that “a person shall not testify as a witness to establish his own | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.