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.
15 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Stategreen2 sentences2010For example, in Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 55 (¶ 79) (Miss.1998), Melissa Smrz testified regarding DNA-analysis evidence that was used to help identify Rodney Gray as the perpetrator. 2003The State relied on Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36 (¶¶ 88-85) (Miss.1998), which allowed DNA supervisors who qualified as experts to testify regarding test results conducted by others in the lab. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Mississippi Department of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2024Id. at 150 (¶1). | 1 | 1 |
MacK Trucks, Inc. v. Tackettgreen2 sentences2022Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics v. Canada, 164 So. 3d 1003, 1006-09 (¶¶10-20) (Miss. 2015). 11 The Supreme Court’s decision in Accu-Fab was later overruled on unrelated grounds in Mack Trucks Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So. 2d 1107, 1114-15 (¶¶27-28) (Miss. 2003). 24 subcontractor—attempted to introduce the drug test results as evidence that the decedent contributed to his own injuries. 2022Id. at (¶20). | 1 | 1 |
Accu-Fab & Construction, Inc. v. Ladner ex rel. Ladnergreen1 sentence2022Accu-Fab, 970 So. 2d at 1289 (¶¶53-54) (McMillin, C.J., joined by Southwick, P.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
ACCU FAB & CONST., INC. v. Ladnergreen1 sentence2022Accu-Fab, 778 So. 2d at 771-72 (¶22-25). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics v. Canadagreen1 sentence2022Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics v. Canada, 164 So. 3d 1003, 1006-09 (¶¶10-20) (Miss. 2015). 11 The Supreme Court’s decision in Accu-Fab was later overruled on unrelated grounds in Mack Trucks Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So. 2d 1107, 1114-15 (¶¶27-28) (Miss. 2003). 24 subcontractor—attempted to introduce the drug test results as evidence that the decedent contributed to his own injuries. | 1 | 1 |
Newell v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Brown v. State , 690 So.2d 276 , 286 (Miss. 1996) (holding that a drug test was admissible based on the fact that it was relevant for the purpose of proving discrepancies in [the defendant]'s statement to police); see also Newell v. State , 49 So.3d 66 , 73 (Miss. 2010) (finding the trial court's exclusion of a shooting victim's blood toxicology results was reversible error because the trial court's refusal to admit the toxicology screening prevented the defendant from fully presenting his defense theory); Byrd v. State , 154 Miss. 742 , 123 So. 867 , 869 (1929) (holding that the defendant | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Brown v. State , 690 So.2d 276 , 286 (Miss. 1996) (holding that a drug test was admissible based on the fact that it was relevant for the purpose of proving discrepancies in [the defendant]'s statement to police); see also Newell v. State , 49 So.3d 66 , 73 (Miss. 2010) (finding the trial court's exclusion of a shooting victim's blood toxicology results was reversible error because the trial court's refusal to admit the toxicology screening prevented the defendant from fully presenting his defense theory); Byrd v. State , 154 Miss. 742 , 123 So. 867 , 869 (1929) (holding that the defendant | 1 | 1 |
Matthies v. Stategreen2 sentences2013While Melendez-Diaz does hold that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to a defendant the right to confront at trial the analyst who has done the drug analysis of any contraband alleged to have been sold by the defendant, id. at 311 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , our supreme court in Matthies v. State, 85 So.3d 838, 843-44 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012), stated that even in the wake of Melendez-Diaz , “records pertaining to [I]ntoxilyzer inspection, maintenance, or calibration are indeed nontestimonial in nature, and thus, their admission into evidence is not viola-tive of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” 2013Id. at 842 (¶ 16). | 1 | 1 |
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hilliardgreen1 sentence2002An employee’s refusal to take a drug test after a workplace injury was found not to be a basis on which to deny workers' compensation benefits in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hilliard, 772 So.2d 1103, 1106-7 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (Southwick, P.J.). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 958-59 (Miss. 1988); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986); Poole v. State, 291 So.2d 723, 726 (Miss. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
Poole v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 958-59 (Miss. 1988); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986); Poole v. State, 291 So.2d 723, 726 (Miss. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 958-59 (Miss. 1988); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986); Poole v. State, 291 So.2d 723, 726 (Miss. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Tupelo Oil Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Anderson therefore argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with this Court's decision in Hughes v. Tupelo Oil Co., 510 So.2d 502 (Miss.1987). 1995Anderson therefore argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with this Court's decision in Hughes v. Tupelo Oil Co., 510 So. 2d 502 (Miss. 1987). | 2 | 1995–2001 |
Byrd v. State
green
2 sentences2018See Brown v. State , 690 So.2d 276 , 286 (Miss. 1996) (holding that a drug test was admissible based on the fact that it was relevant for the purpose of proving discrepancies in [the defendant]'s statement to police); see also Newell v. State , 49 So.3d 66 , 73 (Miss. 2010) (finding the trial court's exclusion of a shooting victim's blood toxicology results was reversible error because the trial court's refusal to admit the toxicology screening prevented the defendant from fully presenting his defense theory); Byrd v. State , 154 Miss. 742 , 123 So. 867 , 869 (1929) (holding that the defendant 2018See Brown v. State , 690 So.2d 276 , 286 (Miss. 1996) (holding that a drug test was admissible based on the fact that it was relevant for the purpose of proving discrepancies in [the defendant]'s statement to police); see also Newell v. State , 49 So.3d 66 , 73 (Miss. 2010) (finding the trial court's exclusion of a shooting victim's blood toxicology results was reversible error because the trial court's refusal to admit the toxicology screening prevented the defendant from fully presenting his defense theory); Byrd v. State , 154 Miss. 742 , 123 So. 867 , 869 (1929) (holding that the defendant | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Eckman v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
green
1 sentence2018Eckman , 893 So.2d at 1052 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Perry Armstead v. State of Mississippi
green
2 sentences2018In Armstead v. State , 196 So.3d 913 , 921 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2016), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that allowing testimony from a forensic-science expert who was "actively involved in the production of [a drug analysis] report and had intimate knowledge of the analysis even though she did not perform the tests first hand" did not violate the Confrontation Clause. 2018Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State , 102 So.3d 1063 , 1069 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2012) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State , 102 So.3d 1063 , 1069 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2012) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2013While Melendez-Diaz does hold that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to a defendant the right to confront at trial the analyst who has done the drug analysis of any contraband alleged to have been sold by the defendant, id. at 311 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , our supreme court in Matthies v. State, 85 So.3d 838, 843-44 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012), stated that even in the wake of Melendez-Diaz , “records pertaining to [I]ntoxilyzer inspection, maintenance, or calibration are indeed nontestimonial in nature, and thus, their admission into evidence is not viola-tive of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” 2013While Melendez-Diaz does hold that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to a defendant the right to confront at trial the analyst who has done the drug analysis of any contraband alleged to have been sold by the defendant, id. at 311 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 , our supreme court in Matthies v. State, 85 So.3d 838, 843-44 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012), stated that even in the wake of Melendez-Diaz , “records pertaining to [I]ntoxilyzer inspection, maintenance, or calibration are indeed nontestimonial in nature, and thus, their admission into evidence is not viola-tive of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.” | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2009The Supreme Court stated: "In sum, a court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). 2009The Supreme Court stated: "In sum, a court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harmelin v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2009The Supreme Court stated: "In sum, a court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). 2009The Supreme Court stated: "In sum, a court's proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (overruled in part Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2009NOTES [1] The trial judge, finding the thirty-year sentence sufficient punishment, granted Perkins's request that the court forego enhancing his sentence for selling cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church. [2] As will be discussed later, Perkins contends that he sold Sheetrock and disputes that the sale took place within 1,500 feet of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. [3] Sergeant Bridges testified that they expected Hollingsworth to make two buys, spending forty dollars on each transaction. [4] Sergeant Bridges testified that he later viewed the videotape. [5] Teresia Hickmon, a forensic scie 2009NOTES [1] The trial judge, finding the thirty-year sentence sufficient punishment, granted Perkins's request that the court forego enhancing his sentence for selling cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church. [2] As will be discussed later, Perkins contends that he sold Sheetrock and disputes that the sale took place within 1,500 feet of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. [3] Sergeant Bridges testified that they expected Hollingsworth to make two buys, spending forty dollars on each transaction. [4] Sergeant Bridges testified that he later viewed the videotape. [5] Teresia Hickmon, a forensic scie | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kettle v. State
green
1 sentence2004Kettle, 641 So.2d at 747 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Southwood Door Co. v. Burton
green
1 sentence2004Curtis cites Southwood Door Co. v. Burton, 847 So.2d 833 (Miss.2003) as authority that he should have been awarded unemployment benefits. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.