15 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co.green2 sentences2005Specifically, we held that "[s]ince it is possible that both the employer and the utility could be jointly liable in an accident such as the one at issue in this case, it is not reasonable to allow Entergy, with significantly greater bargaining power, to essentially unilaterally impose the indemnity clause upon its customers such as Burdette Gin." Burdette Gin, 726 So.2d at 1208 . 2004Specifically, we held that “[s]ince it is possible that both the employer and the utility could be jointly liable in an accident such as the one at issue in this case, it is not reasonable to allow Entergy, with significantly greater bargaining power, to essentially unilaterally impose the indemnity clause upon its customers such as Burdette Gin.” Burdette Gin, 726 So.2d at 1208 . | 5 | 7 |
Bank of Indiana, National Ass'n v. Holyfieldgreen2 sentences2004Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Miss.1998)) (quoting Bank of Indiana, Nat’l Ass’n v. Holyfield, 476 F.Supp. 104, 109 (S.D.Miss.1979)). 2004Inc. v. Burdette Gin Co., 726 So.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Miss.1998)) (quoting Bank of Indiana, Nat'l Ass'n v. Holyfield, 476 F.Supp. 104, 109 (S.D.Miss.1979)). | 3 | 5 |
York v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.green2 sentences1998Procedural unconscionability "is most strongly shown in contracts of adhesion presented to a party on a `take it or leave it basis.'" York, 585 F.Supp. at 1278 ( quoting Holyfield, 476 F.Supp. at 108 ). 1997Procedural unconscionability "is most strongly shown in contracts of adhesion presented to a party on a 'take it or leave it basis.'" York, 585 F.Supp. at 1278 (quoting Holyfield, 476 F.Supp. at 108 ). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parkerson v. Smith
green
2 sentences2004Justice Diaz next cited a case dealing with an indemnity clause, not an arbitration clause, to find that “the defendants must show that ‘the provision was reasonably related to the business risks of the parties.’ ” Id. (quoting Entergy Miss. 2004Justice Diaz next cited a case dealing with an indemnity clause, not an arbitration clause, to find that "the defendants must show that `the provision was reasonably related to the business risks of the parties.'" Id. (quoting Entergy Miss. | 3 | 2002–2004 |
USF&G CO. v. Omnibank
green
2 sentences2010(Emphasis added.) According to the circuit court, the: definition of “occurrence” being parsed by the [Mississippi] Supreme Court in [United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Omnibank, 812 So.2d 196 (Miss.2002)] is verbatim identical to the language in the policy at issue- here. 2008(Emphasis added.) According to the circuit court, the: definition of “occurrence” being parsed by the [Mississippi] Supreme Court in [United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Omnibank, 812 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 2002)] is verbatim identical to the language in the policy at issue here. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co.
green
1 sentence2009To prevail on an indemnity claim, the Bank was obligated to prove that: “(1) it was legally liable to an injured third party, (2) it paid under compulsion, and (3) the amount it paid was reasonable.” Id. at (¶ 36). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
City Of Jackson, Mississippi v. Filtrol Corporation
green
2 sentences2006Finally, in City of Jackson v. Filtrol Corp., 624 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir.1980), the Fifth Circuit upheld an indemnity clause because it was found within an easement, not a construction contract. 2006Finally, in City of Jackson v. Filtrol Corp., 624 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir.1980), the Fifth Circuit upheld an indemnity clause because it was found within an easement, not a construction contract. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lorenzen v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2006In Lorenzen v. South Central Bell, 546 F.Supp. 694 (S.D.Miss.1982), an indemnity clause within a licensing agreement was upheld, where the purpose of the licensing agreement was merely to permit a cable company to maintain cables on telephone poles owned by the other contracting party. 2006Id. at 695 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Heritage Cablevision v. New Albany Elec. Power System
green
2 sentences2006Power Sys., 646 So.2d 1305 (Miss.1994), where the Mississippi Supreme Court found an indemnity clause valid because the contract in question was "a licensing agreement and not a construction contract." Id. at 1312 . 2006Power Sys., 646 So.2d 1305 (Miss.1994), where the Mississippi Supreme Court found an indemnity clause valid because the contract in question was "a licensing agreement and not a construction contract." Id. at 1312 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
cluster 430903
green
1 sentence1994They do, however, cite Butler v. United States, 726 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir.1984), as a case in which an indemnity clause was overturned for public policy reasons. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hosford v. McKissack
green
1 sentence1991Hosford v. McKissack, supra , to like effect. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.