14 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1985Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility. ( 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 , 98 L.Ed. at 507 ). 1985Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility. ( 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 , 98 L.Ed. at 507 ). | 1 | 4 |
PERS v. Stampsgreen1 sentence2006Id. at 676, quoting Perales, 402 U.S. at 402 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 . | 1 | 1 |
Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logginggreen1 sentence2005Kitchens v. Jerry Vowell Logging, 874 So.2d 456, 468 (¶ 44) (Miss.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
PERC v. Marquezgreen1 sentence2004In denying the disability claim, the Claims Appeal Committee stated: "A great deal of the medical records indicates that Mr. Smith's complaints are subjective rather than objective." The court in Public Employees' Retirement System v. Marquez, 774 So.2d 421, 427 (¶ 22) (Miss.2000) rejected a similar argument from PERS stating that "[i]f medical diagnoses by licensed physicians are to be labeled `subjective' evidence of medical ailments, it is unclear what PERS would consider to be `objective' evidence." ¶ 70. | 1 | 1 |
PERS v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2002Thomas, 809 So.2d at 694 (¶ 14). ¶ 7. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rosario Nick Colletti, Jack Salvatore Russogreen1 sentence1975See also United States v. Colletti, 245 F.2d 781 (2nd Cir.1957). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Jackson Const. Co.
green
2 sentences2002Smith, 607 So.2d at 1125-26 . 2002Smith, 607 So.2d at 1125-26 . | 3 | 2000–2002 |
Richardson v. Perales
green
2 sentences1979We conclude that a written report by a licensed physician who has examined the claimant and who sets forth in his report his medical findings in his area of competence may be received as evidence in a disability hearing and, despite its hearsay character and an absence of cross-examination, and despite the presence of opposing direct medical testimony and testimony *1361 by the claimant himself, may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding by the hearing examiner adverse to the claimant, when the claimant has not exercised his right to subpoena the reporting physician and thereb 1979We conclude that a written report by a licensed physician who has examined the claimant and who sets forth in his report his medical findings in his area of competence may be received as evidence in a disability hearing and, despite its hearsay character and an absence of cross-examination, and despite the presence of opposing direct medical testimony and testimony *1361 by the claimant himself, may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding by the hearing examiner adverse to the claimant, when the claimant has not exercised his right to subpoena the reporting physician and thereb | 2 | 1979–2006 |
Jenkins v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1981Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility. ( 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 , 98 L.Ed. at 507 ) Also, see Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 , 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980), wherein the United States Supreme Court stated that a defendant is under a duty to testify truthfully and in order to test the veracity of his statement, the prosecution may utilize traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. 1981Beyond that, however, there is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility. ( 347 U.S. at 65 , 74 S.Ct. at 356 , 98 L.Ed. at 507 ) Also, see Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 , 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980), wherein the United States Supreme Court stated that a defendant is under a duty to testify truthfully and in order to test the veracity of his statement, the prosecution may utilize traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. | 2 | 1981–1985 |
Pontotoc Wire Products Co. v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2005Pontotoc Wire Products Co., 384 So.2d at 603 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cockrell Banana Company v. Harris
green
1 sentence1968Cockrell Banana Company v. Harris, 212 So.2d 581 (Miss.1968), held that apportionment of a disability claim should be applied to weekly and maximum benefits when claimant has reached maximum medical recovery. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas
green
1 sentence1932The jury returned a verdict for the appellee for the amount sued for, in the following language: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, the sum of five hundred four dollars and eighty cents," and a judgment was rendered thereon for five hundred four dollars and eighty cents, "with interest and costs." The appellant, defendant in the court below, brought the case to this court, and on a former day of the present term the judgment of the court below was reversed, this court holding that the appellee was entitled to recover four hundred dollars due him under the disability clause *Page 63 of the | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.