15 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randall v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Randall v. State, 806 So.2d 185, 201 (Miss.2001) (quoting Butler v. State, 702 So.2d 125, 128 (Miss.1997)). 2011I am citing from Randall versus State, 806 So.2d 185 [ (Miss.2001) ]. | 2 | 4 |
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Parker v. State, 606 So.2d 1132, 1138 (Miss.1992), we analyzed the five requirements for the admission of *752 hearsay under M.R.E. 803(24), which provides the same residual exception for the admission of hearsay as M.R.E. 804(b)(5), regardless of whether the declarant is available to testify. 2000In Parker v. State, 606 So. 2d 1132, 1138 (Miss. 1992), we analyzed the five requirements for the admission of hearsay under M.R.E. 803(24), which provides the same residual exception for the admission of hearsay as M.R.E. 804(b)(5), regardless of whether the declarant is available to testify. | 2 | 3 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Randall v. State, 806 So.2d 185, 201 (Miss.2001) (quoting Butler v. State, 702 So.2d 125, 128 (Miss.1997)). 2009Randall v. State, 806 So. 2d 185, 201 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Butler v. State, 702 So. 2d 125, 128 (Miss. 1997)). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of CLgreen2 sentences1989The Supreme Court of South Dakota in Matter of C.L., 397 N.W.2d 81, 84 (S.D. 1986), found the statute "superior in sexual abuse cases to both the spontaneous exclamation exception and the residual exception approach." It was no doubt in response to this felt need that the office of the Attorney General prepared the draft of this Act and presented to the 1986 Legislative session. 1989Yet in Matter of C.L., 397 N.W.2d 81, 84 (S.D. 1986), it found that a sexual abuse statute identical to the Washington statute, S.D.C.L. 19-16-38 "superior in sexual abuse cases to both the spontaneous exclamation exception and the residual exception approach, " of that Court's rules. | 2 | 2 |
Cummins v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Cummins v. State, 515 So.2d 869, 873-74 (Miss.1987) (overruled on other grounds), the court stated that one day notice before trial was not sufficient for providing notice under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. 2001Absent such a finding the evidence cannot be admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule." Cummins, 515 So.2d at 874 . | 1 | 3 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563 (“Today’s decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony.”). | 1 | 1 |
Tirouda v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Id. at 215 (¶ 10). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James A. \Bubba\" Mathis"green1 sentence2001This notice should be given "sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide ... a fair opportunity to meet it. ...." United States v. Mathis, 559 F.2d 294, 299 (5th Cir.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Leatherwood v. Stategreen1 sentence2000The five requirements are “trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, interests of justice, and notice.” Parker, 606 So.2d at 1138 (citing Motorola Com. & Electronics v. Wilkerson, 555 So.2d 713, 720 (Miss. 1989); Leatherwood v. State, 548 So.2d 389, 401 (Miss. 1989)). ¶73. | 1 | 1 |
Motorola Com. & Electronics v. Wilkersongreen1 sentence2000The five requirements are “trustworthiness, materiality, probative value, interests of justice, and notice.” Parker, 606 So.2d at 1138 (citing Motorola Com. & Electronics v. Wilkerson, 555 So.2d 713, 720 (Miss. 1989); Leatherwood v. State, 548 So.2d 389, 401 (Miss. 1989)). ¶73. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences2001The Court of Appeals referred to our decision in Cummins and said that "one day notice before trial was not sufficient for providing notice under the residual exception to the hearsay rule." Id. at ś 8. 2001However, the court also noted that "while [the proffered oral statements] to [defendant] were not admitted, there was, nevertheless, testimony before the jury from Dr. Hayne about the victim's prior use of cocaine." Id. at ś 11. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Vaughn v. VAUGHN
green
2 sentences1968It is to be noted in Vaughn v. Vaughn, 238 Miss. 342 , 118 So.2d 620 (1960) that the residual clause bequeathed all residual property to the wife but provided that any of the same not consumed by her in her lifetime should go to the children. 1968It is to be noted in Vaughn v. Vaughn, 238 Miss. 342 , 118 So.2d 620 (1960) that the residual clause bequeathed all residual property to the wife but provided that any of the same not consumed by her in her lifetime should go to the children. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.