16 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mwf v. Ddfgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 17 (¶13); see also M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897, 899-900 (¶¶3-5) (Miss. 2006) (holding that because the chancery court’s order only resolved the parties’ divorce claim and held other matters in abeyance, the court’s order was not a final, appealable judgment). ¶14. 2011Id. at (¶ 3). | 1 | 2 |
Clark v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2025Furthermore, in Clark v. Clark, 43 So. 3d 496, 501 (¶19) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Lowrey v. Lowreygreen1 sentence2024The Mississippi Supreme Court has held in no uncertain terms that “[t]he failure to consider all applicable Ferguson factors is error and mandates reversal.” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 286 (¶29) (Miss. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Edward William Speights, III v. Kimberly Daniels Speightsgreen1 sentence2022Speights v. Speights, 270 So. 3d 968, 975 (¶29) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Hammonds v. Hammondsgreen1 sentence2021Hammonds v. Hammonds, 597 So. 2d 653, 655 (Miss. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Sanford v. Sanfordgreen1 sentence2021Id. at 654 (¶26). | 1 | 1 |
S.E.B. v. R.E.B.green1 sentence2019Id. at 17 (¶13); see also M.W.F. v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897, 899-900 (¶¶3-5) (Miss. 2006) (holding that because the chancery court’s order only resolved the parties’ divorce claim and held other matters in abeyance, the court’s order was not a final, appealable judgment). ¶14. | 1 | 1 |
Armstrong v. Armstronggreen1 sentence2017Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Shipley v. Fergusongreen1 sentence2015Shipley v. Ferguson, 638 So.2d 1295, 1298 (Miss.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Wheat v. Wheatgreen1 sentence2015See Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So.3d 632, 637 (¶ 15) (Miss.2010). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Kinggreen1 sentence2009Rule 40(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure states that notice of setting of the trial docket must be sent to “all attorneys and parties without attorneys.” King v. King, 556 So.2d 716, 718 (Miss.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Rawson v. Butagreen1 sentence2009Id. at 429, 432 . | 1 | 1 |
Luse v. Lusegreen1 sentence2009In Luse v. Luse, 992 So.2d 659, 660 (¶ 1) (Miss.Ct.App.2008), John Luse failed to answer the complaint for divorce and failed to appear at the divorce hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Wilburn v. Wilburngreen1 sentence2009“This Court will not disturb the findings of a chancellor when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So.2d 1185, 1190 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008) (quoting Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625-26 (¶8) (Miss.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Sanderson v. Sandersongreen1 sentence2009“This Court will not disturb the findings of a chancellor when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So.2d 1185, 1190 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008) (quoting Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625-26 (¶8) (Miss.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Parkergreen1 sentence2007App.2002) (citing Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So.2d 1366, 1375 (Miss.1983)). [8] See also Parker v. Parker, 519 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Miss.1988) (stating that the divorce defense of recrimination is an affirmative defense). [9] After the chancellor issued his ruling in open court, Mr. Ashburn raised the issue that Mrs. Ashburn never pled the defense of condonation. | 1 | 1 |
Ladner v. Ladnergreen1 sentence2007App.2002) (citing Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So.2d 1366, 1375 (Miss.1983)). [8] See also Parker v. Parker, 519 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Miss.1988) (stating that the divorce defense of recrimination is an affirmative defense). [9] After the chancellor issued his ruling in open court, Mr. Ashburn raised the issue that Mrs. Ashburn never pled the defense of condonation. | 1 | 1 |
Deen v. Deengreen1 sentence2006Deen v. Deen, 856 So.2d 736, 739 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pittman v. Pittman
green
1 sentence2016Anthony cites to Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857 (Miss.Ct.App.2001), to support his argument that the line of demarcation between marital and separate property should have been the date of the temporary support order rather than , the date of the divorce hearing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Collins v. Collins
green
1 sentence2016However, Pittman was overruled by Collins v. Collins, 112 So.3d 428 (Miss.2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pellegrin v. Pellegrin
green
1 sentence1993Pellegrin, 478 So.2d at 307 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.