14 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Tallahatchie Countygreen2 sentences2006NOTES [1] Significantly, the reasoning in both Givens and Jones was later questioned by this Court in Collins v. Tallahatchie County, 876 So.2d 284, 289 (Miss.2004), wherein we held that the ordinary care standard did not apply to subsection 11-46-9(1)(d) of the MTCA regarding the performance of discretionary functions. 2005"Subsection (b) clearly carries an ordinary care standard; subsection (d) does not." Collins, 876 So.2d at 289 (¶ 16). ¶ 11. | 5 | 5 |
Brewer v. Burdettegreen2 sentences2009The following clarification was given as to when the ordinary care standard applies: Here, both parties cite (directly or parenthetically) Brewer v. Burdette, 768 So.2d 920, 923 (Miss.2000), for the erroneous proposition that one must use ordinary care in performing a discretionary function to retain immunity. 2009The following clarification was given as to when the ordinary care standard applies: Here, both parties cite (directly or parenthetically) Brewer v. Burdette, 768 So.2d 920, 923 (Miss.2000), for the erroneous proposition that one must use ordinary care in performing a discretionary function to retain immunity. | 1 | 2 |
Singleton v. Stegallgreen1 sentence2014See Forbes, 145 So.3d at 1208 (¶ 1) (reversing chancellor’s grant of summary judgment to attorney in a legal-malpractice suit); see also Wilbourn, 687 So.2d at 1215 (discussing the elements that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to recover in a legal-malpractice case); Singleton, 580 So.2d at 1244-45 (clarifying that an attorney owes his client duties falling into three broad categories, including a duty of care, a duty of loyalty, and any duties provided by contract); Foster, 528 So.2d at 284 -85 (quoting Mallen and Levit, Legal Malpractice § 1 (2d ed.1981) in a discus | 1 | 1 |
Wilbourn v. Stennett, Wilkinson & Wardgreen1 sentence2014See Forbes, 145 So.3d at 1208 (¶ 1) (reversing chancellor’s grant of summary judgment to attorney in a legal-malpractice suit); see also Wilbourn, 687 So.2d at 1215 (discussing the elements that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to recover in a legal-malpractice case); Singleton, 580 So.2d at 1244-45 (clarifying that an attorney owes his client duties falling into three broad categories, including a duty of care, a duty of loyalty, and any duties provided by contract); Foster, 528 So.2d at 284 -85 (quoting Mallen and Levit, Legal Malpractice § 1 (2d ed.1981) in a discus | 1 | 1 |
Forbes v. St. Martingreen1 sentence2014See Forbes, 145 So.3d at 1208 (¶ 1) (reversing chancellor’s grant of summary judgment to attorney in a legal-malpractice suit); see also Wilbourn, 687 So.2d at 1215 (discussing the elements that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to recover in a legal-malpractice case); Singleton, 580 So.2d at 1244-45 (clarifying that an attorney owes his client duties falling into three broad categories, including a duty of care, a duty of loyalty, and any duties provided by contract); Foster, 528 So.2d at 284 -85 (quoting Mallen and Levit, Legal Malpractice § 1 (2d ed.1981) in a discus | 1 | 1 |
TK Ex Rel. DK v. SIMPSON CTY. SCHOOL DIST.green1 sentence2008Dist., 846 So.2d 312, 319 (¶ 24) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LW v. McComb Separate Mun. School Dist.
green
2 sentences2009Unfortunately, Brewer cited L.W. v. McComb Separate School District, 754 So.2d 1136 (Miss.1999), for the proposition that an ordinary care standard ap plies to discretionary[-]function immunity. 2009Unfortunately, Brewer cited L.W. v. McComb Separate School District, 754 So.2d 1136 (Miss.1999), for the proposition that an ordinary care standard applies *798 to discretionary[-]function immunity. | 4 | 2003–2009 |
Leflore v. State
green
2 sentences2015In Poy v. Grayson, 273 So. 2d 491 (Miss. 1973), the Court examined a few secondary sources addressing animal-owner liability and settled upon the following rule: There is a considerable diversity among the Courts of the several states as to the conditions under which liability may be imposed in cases of this kind. 2015In Poy v. Grayson, 273 So.2d 491 (Miss.1973), the Court examined a few secondary sources addressing animal-owner liability and settled upon the following rule: There is a considerable diversity among the Courts of the several states as to the conditions under which liability may be imposed in cases of this kind. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Harris Ex Rel. Harris v. McCray
green
2 sentences2004In Brewer , this Court misapplied the wording in L.W. by incorrectly applying the ordinary care standard to discretionary duties. [10] In Harris , this Court held: "When an official is required to use his own judgment or discretion in performing a duty, that duty is discretionary." Harris, 867 So.2d at 191 . 2003In Brewer, this Court misapplied the wording in L.W..by incorrectly applying the ordinary care standard to discretionary duties.10 In Harris, this Court held: “When an official is required to use his own judgment or discretion in performing a duty, that duty is discretionary.” Harris, 867 So. 2d at 191 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Foster
green
1 sentence2014See Forbes, 145 So.3d at 1208 (¶ 1) (reversing chancellor’s grant of summary judgment to attorney in a legal-malpractice suit); see also Wilbourn, 687 So.2d at 1215 (discussing the elements that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to recover in a legal-malpractice case); Singleton, 580 So.2d at 1244-45 (clarifying that an attorney owes his client duties falling into three broad categories, including a duty of care, a duty of loyalty, and any duties provided by contract); Foster, 528 So.2d at 284 -85 (quoting Mallen and Levit, Legal Malpractice § 1 (2d ed.1981) in a discus | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Lucas v. Mississippi Housing Authority No. 8
green
1 sentence1988Lucas v. Mississippi Housing Authority No. 8, 441 So.2d 101 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tippit v. Hunter
green
1 sentence1980Allen next attacks the refusal of the trial court to grant proffered instruction P-3, a standard of care instruction including the language, "the defendant had no lawful right to go forward ... under the assumption that it would be open and clear." While language of this sort appears in the cases, see Tippit v. Hunter, 205 So.2d 267 (Miss. 1967); Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner, 244 Miss. 130 , 141 So.2d 226 (1962), defects in instructions do not require reversal where all the instructions taken together fairly announce the applicable law. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Jackson Yellow Cab Co. v. Alexander
green
2 sentences1980Jackson Yellow Cab Co. v. Alexander, 246 Miss. 268 , 148 So.2d 674 (1963). 1980Jackson Yellow Cab Co. v. Alexander, 246 Miss. 268 , 148 So.2d 674 (1963). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner
green
2 sentences1980Allen next attacks the refusal of the trial court to grant proffered instruction P-3, a standard of care instruction including the language, "the defendant had no lawful right to go forward ... under the assumption that it would be open and clear." While language of this sort appears in the cases, see Tippit v. Hunter, 205 So.2d 267 (Miss. 1967); Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner, 244 Miss. 130 , 141 So.2d 226 (1962), defects in instructions do not require reversal where all the instructions taken together fairly announce the applicable law. 1980Allen next attacks the refusal of the trial court to grant proffered instruction P-3, a standard of care instruction including the language, "the defendant had no lawful right to go forward ... under the assumption that it would be open and clear." While language of this sort appears in the cases, see Tippit v. Hunter, 205 So.2d 267 (Miss. 1967); Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner, 244 Miss. 130 , 141 So.2d 226 (1962), defects in instructions do not require reversal where all the instructions taken together fairly announce the applicable law. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.