16 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
McClendon v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375 , 1377-78 (Miss. 1989) (post-conviction prisoner/petitioner held to clear and convincing evidence standard when his claim should have been considered under a preponderance of the evidence standard); McGory v. Allstate Insurance Co., 527 So.2d 632 , 638 (Miss. 1988) (civil arson defense presented to jury under preponderance standard, when it should have been subjected to clear and convincing evidence standard). 1991See McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375, 1377-78 (Miss.1989) (post-conviction prisoner/petitioner held to clear and convincing evidence standard when his claim should have been considered under a preponderance of the evidence standard); McGory v. Allstate Insurance Co., 527 So.2d 632, 638 (Miss. 1988) (civil arson defense presented to jury under preponderance standard, when it should have been subjected to clear and convincing evidence standard). | 2 | 2 |
McGory v. Allstate Ins. Co.green2 sentences1991See McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375 , 1377-78 (Miss. 1989) (post-conviction prisoner/petitioner held to clear and convincing evidence standard when his claim should have been considered under a preponderance of the evidence standard); McGory v. Allstate Insurance Co., 527 So.2d 632 , 638 (Miss. 1988) (civil arson defense presented to jury under preponderance standard, when it should have been subjected to clear and convincing evidence standard). 1991See McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375, 1377-78 (Miss.1989) (post-conviction prisoner/petitioner held to clear and convincing evidence standard when his claim should have been considered under a preponderance of the evidence standard); McGory v. Allstate Insurance Co., 527 So.2d 632, 638 (Miss. 1988) (civil arson defense presented to jury under preponderance standard, when it should have been subjected to clear and convincing evidence standard). | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2026It is clear from the record the existence of a relationship between Tyler and Fiser was not newly discovered 4 Notably, our Supreme Court has held that “‘jurors take their oaths and responsibilities seriously, and when a prospective juror assure[s] the court that, despite the circumstance that raises some question as to his qualification, this will not affect his verdict, this promise is entitled to considerable deference.’” Williams v. State, 61 So. 3d 981, 984 (¶19) (Miss. 2011) (quoting Parker v. State, 825 So. 2d 59, 64 (¶16) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Stategreen1 sentence2026It is clear from the record the existence of a relationship between Tyler and Fiser was not newly discovered 4 Notably, our Supreme Court has held that “‘jurors take their oaths and responsibilities seriously, and when a prospective juror assure[s] the court that, despite the circumstance that raises some question as to his qualification, this will not affect his verdict, this promise is entitled to considerable deference.’” Williams v. State, 61 So. 3d 981, 984 (¶19) (Miss. 2011) (quoting Parker v. State, 825 So. 2d 59, 64 (¶16) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Benz v. Monarch Transfer & Storage Co.green1 sentence2024See Collins, 61 9 S.W.2d at 822; Hook, 938 N.E.2d at 1097 ; N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Mrs. Winnie Gardner v. Oscar F. Wilkinson, Cross-Appellant v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence2023Gardner v. Wilkinson, 643 F.2d 1135, 1137 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981); O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 240 (¶13). | 1 | 1 |
Charles O'Neal v. Tracy Sykes Blalockgreen1 sentence2023Gardner v. Wilkinson, 643 F.2d 1135, 1137 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981); O’Neal, 220 So. 3d at 240 (¶13). | 1 | 1 |
Harrington v. Office of the Mississippi Secretary of Stategreen2 sentences2016Furthermore, we recognize that Mississippi Securities Act Rule 817(B) provides that “[u]nless otherwise specified by law, the standard of proof at [an administrative] hearing shall be by a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Harrington, 129 So.3d at 161 (¶ 16); Miss. 2016Furthermore, we recognize that Mississippi Securities Act Rule 817(B) provides that “[u]nless otherwise specified by law, the standard of proof at [an administrative] hearing shall be by a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Harrington, 129 So. 3d at 161 (¶16); Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Malaco Musicgreen1 sentence2015Jones, 2 F.Supp.2d at 884 (finding that “[p]unitive damages may be awarded only when the trier of fact is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s actions were wanton, malicious[,] or fraudulent in nature.”) Likewise, in its final judgment, the chancery court found that “[p]unitive damages may be awarded only when the trier of fact is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] defendant’s actions were wanton, malicious[,] or fraudulent in nature.” The chancery court further found that [Steve’s] conduct was malicious, intentional[,] and outrageous. | 1 | 1 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen2 sentences2013In Steadman , the Court upheld the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in light of a dissenting opinion that took issue with the standard, arguing that “severe sanctions” had been imposed on Steadman under the antifraud provisions of the securities acts, including being “barred permanently from practicing his profession.” Steadman, 450 U.S. at 104 , 101 S.Ct. 999 (Powell, J., dissenting). 2013In Steadman , the Court upheld the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in light of a dissenting opinion that took issue with the standard, arguing that “severe sanctions” had been imposed on Steadman under the antifraud provisions of the securities acts, including being “barred permanently from practicing his profession.” Steadman, 450 U.S. at 104 , 101 S.Ct. 999 (Powell, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Recognizing the “considerable discretion” extended to the trial court as to “the form and substance of jury instructions[,]” Higgins v. State, 725 So. 2d 220, 223 (Miss. 1998), when 7 Likewise, Jury Instructions No. 1a, 3, 8, and 9, which were clearly patterned on the Mississippi Model Jury Instructions, announce the applicable primary rules of law on the preponderance of the evidence standard, proximate cause, and the consideration of expert witness testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Foster v. Copiah County Co-Operative, AAL.green2 sentences1992Foster v. Copiah County Co-Op., AAL, 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 708 (1963). 1992Foster v. Copiah County Co-Op., AAL, 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 708 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Levi v. Mississippi State Bargreen1 sentence1989Walls v. Mississippi State Bar, 437 So.2d 30, 32 (Miss. 1983); Levi v. Mississippi State Bar, 436 So.2d 781, 783 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Walls v. Mississippi State Bargreen1 sentence1989Walls v. Mississippi State Bar, 437 So.2d 30, 32 (Miss. 1983); Levi v. Mississippi State Bar, 436 So.2d 781, 783 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Haygood v. First Nat. Bank of New Albanygreen1 sentence1988Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183, 1189 (Miss. 1987); cf. Haygood v. First National Bank of New Albany, 517 So.2d 553, 555-56 (Miss. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Mullins v. Ratcliffgreen1 sentence1988Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So.2d 1183, 1189 (Miss. 1987); cf. Haygood v. First National Bank of New Albany, 517 So.2d 553, 555-56 (Miss. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Humphrey v. Pannell
green
2 sentences2018The Court then concluded that, under a material-change-of-circumstances standard, Humphrey could divest the grandparents of custody of their adopted child which "comes dangerously close to terminating the Pannells' parental rights on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence standard which was rejected by this Court, the Legislature, and the U.S. Supreme Court." Id. at 399 . 2018The Court then concluded that, under a material-change-of-circumstances standard, Humphrey could divest the grandparents of custody of their adopted child which "comes dangerously close to terminating the Pannells' parental rights on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence standard which was rejected by this Court, the Legislature, and the U.S. Supreme Court." Id. at 399 . | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Hook v. Hook
green
1 sentence2024See Collins, 61 9 S.W.2d at 822; Hook, 938 N.E.2d at 1097 ; N.C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
green
2 sentences2013Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 387-89 , 103 S.Ct. 683 , 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 92, 96 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981). 2013Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 387-89 , 103 S.Ct. 683 , 74 L.Ed.2d 548 (1983); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 92, 96 , 101 S.Ct. 999 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McCarty v. Kellum
green
1 sentence2004See Mississippi Model Jury Instructions - Civil §§ 1.28, 1:38, 15:3, 15:4 (West 2007). 35 the jury instructions considered as a whole “provide[d] the jury with appropriate facts and specific standards[,]” McCarty, 667 So. 2d at 1288 , there is no basis for reversal. ¶82. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
May v. VFW POST NO. 2539
green
1 sentence1995May, 577 So.2d at 375 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.