14 Mississippi opinions name it 3 courts 1844–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eugene Martin v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2026Additionally, “[a]n illegal sentence is an obvious error subject to plain-error review.” Swinney v. State, 241 So. 3d 599, 606 (¶17) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Martin v. State, 214 So. 3d 217, 220 (¶6) (Miss. 2017)). ¶9. 2018"An illegal sentence is an obvious error subject to plain-error review." Martin v. State , 214 So.3d 217 , 220 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2017). | 1 | 2 |
Tony Swinney v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2026Additionally, “[a]n illegal sentence is an obvious error subject to plain-error review.” Swinney v. State, 241 So. 3d 599, 606 (¶17) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Martin v. State, 214 So. 3d 217, 220 (¶6) (Miss. 2017)). ¶9. | 1 | 1 |
Stephen Nolan v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2020But “an obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant and which affects a defendant’s fundamental, substantive right can be addressed under the plain-error doctrine.” Nolan v. State, 182 So. 3d 484, 492 (¶28) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Faron Young v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2019“Under the plain-error doctrine, this Court may exercise discretion to correct an obvious error the defendant failed to properly raise—but only where the error affects the defendant’s fundamental, substantive rights.” Young v. State, 271 So. 3d 650, 657 (¶26) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Stategreen1 sentence2017An illegal sentence is an obvious error subject to plain-error review. 5 See *221 Conner v. State, 138 So.3d 143, 150-51 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2014) (citing Grayer v. State, 120 So.3d 964, 969 (Miss. 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Grayer v. Stategreen1 sentence2017An illegal sentence is an obvious error subject to plain-error review. 5 See *221 Conner v. State, 138 So.3d 143, 150-51 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2014) (citing Grayer v. State, 120 So.3d 964, 969 (Miss. 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michaelgreen1 sentence1979ON THE MERITS In Superior, supra, the court quoted from Masonite Corporation v. Burnham, 164 Miss. 840 , 146 So. 292, 293 , 91 A.L.R. 752 (1933), “The fact of the appointment of such an agent must be proven,” and from Ex Parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 (1931), “[i]t is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice or citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court cannot proceed to judgment.” In Superior, supra, 200 Miss, at 792, 29 So.2d at 117, it said: When this is done, [supplemental record stricken] the record of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Latham
neutral
2 sentences1979ON THE MERITS In Superior, supra, the court quoted from Masonite Corporation v. Burnham, 164 Miss. 840 , 146 So. 292, 293 , 91 A.L.R. 752 (1933), “The fact of the appointment of such an agent must be proven,” and from Ex Parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 (1931), “[i]t is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice or citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court cannot proceed to judgment.” In Superior, supra, 200 Miss, at 792, 29 So.2d at 117, it said: When this is done, [supplemental record stricken] the record of the 1979ON THE MERITS In Superior, supra, the court quoted from Masonite Corporation v. Burnham, 164 Miss. 840 , 146 So. 292, 293 , 91 A.L.R. 752 (1933), “The fact of the appointment of such an agent must be proven,” and from Ex Parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 (1931), “[i]t is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice or citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court cannot proceed to judgment.” In Superior, supra, 200 Miss, at 792, 29 So.2d at 117, it said: When this is done, [supplemental record stricken] the record of the | 2 | 1947–1979 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2023Id. (reiterating that “[t]he purpose of rebuttal testimony is to explain, repel, counteract or disprove evidence by the adverse party”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2018Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2012) (citing Smith v. State , 986 So.2d 290 , 294 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Conners v. State
green
1 sentence2018Conners v. State , 92 So.3d 676 , 684 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2012) (citing Smith v. State , 986 So.2d 290 , 294 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20
green
2 sentences2011Measure 20, 774 So.2d at 402 , stands for the premise that a pre-election challenge to a proposed amendment may properly be had in circuit court to determine whether the amendment meets minimum statutory and constitutional requirements. 2011Measure 20, 774 So.2d at 402 , stands for the premise that a pre-election challenge to a proposed amendment may properly be had in circuit court to determine whether the amendment meets minimum statutory and constitutional requirements. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Weems v. American SEC. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1996This Court, in Weems v. American Security Insurance Co., 486 So.2d 1222 (Miss. 1986), held: There is an obvious exception to this general rule. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Masonite Corp. v. Burnham
green
2 sentences1979ON THE MERITS In Superior, supra, the court quoted from Masonite Corporation v. Burnham, 164 Miss. 840 , 146 So. 292, 293 , 91 A.L.R. 752 (1933), “The fact of the appointment of such an agent must be proven,” and from Ex Parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 (1931), “[i]t is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice or citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court cannot proceed to judgment.” In Superior, supra, 200 Miss, at 792, 29 So.2d at 117, it said: When this is done, [supplemental record stricken] the record of the 1979ON THE MERITS In Superior, supra, the court quoted from Masonite Corporation v. Burnham, 164 Miss. 840 , 146 So. 292, 293 , 91 A.L.R. 752 (1933), “The fact of the appointment of such an agent must be proven,” and from Ex Parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 (1931), “[i]t is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice or citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court cannot proceed to judgment.” In Superior, supra, 200 Miss, at 792, 29 So.2d at 117, it said: When this is done, [supplemental record stricken] the record of the | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Talbert v. Ellzey
green
1 sentence1975This obvious error next appears in McGee v. State, 203 Miss. 609 , 35 So.2d 628 (1948), citing Mayflower Mills v. Breeland, supra . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
McGee v. State
green
1 sentence1975This obvious error next appears in McGee v. State, 203 Miss. 609 , 35 So.2d 628 (1948), citing Mayflower Mills v. Breeland, supra . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Agnew
green
2 sentences1947If and when that is done there can be no further question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the Ellisville district. ’ ’ In Ex parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 , %e-said that: “It is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice of citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court can *790 not proceed to judgment. ’ ’ See also Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Agnew, 170 Miss. 604 , 155 So. 205 ; and Universal Life Insurance Co. v. Catchings, 169 Miss. 26 , 152 So. 817 , where it was held to be the duty of the 1947If and when that is done there can be no further question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the Ellisville district. ’ ’ In Ex parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 , %e-said that: “It is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice of citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court can *790 not proceed to judgment. ’ ’ See also Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Agnew, 170 Miss. 604 , 155 So. 205 ; and Universal Life Insurance Co. v. Catchings, 169 Miss. 26 , 152 So. 817 , where it was held to be the duty of the | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Catchings
neutral
2 sentences1947If and when that is done there can be no further question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the Ellisville district. ’ ’ In Ex parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 , %e-said that: “It is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice of citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court can *790 not proceed to judgment. ’ ’ See also Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Agnew, 170 Miss. 604 , 155 So. 205 ; and Universal Life Insurance Co. v. Catchings, 169 Miss. 26 , 152 So. 817 , where it was held to be the duty of the 1947If and when that is done there can be no further question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the Ellisville district. ’ ’ In Ex parte Latham, 161 Miss. 243 , 136 So. 625 , %e-said that: “It is to state an obvious requirement of our practice that the fact of the service of notice of citation must be officially shown of record, without which the court can *790 not proceed to judgment. ’ ’ See also Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Agnew, 170 Miss. 604 , 155 So. 205 ; and Universal Life Insurance Co. v. Catchings, 169 Miss. 26 , 152 So. 817 , where it was held to be the duty of the | 1 | 1947–1947 |
State v. Bartlett
green
1 sentence1880The difference between an appointee to office -whose superior officer, in the exercise of a sound discretion vested in him by law, requires a bond to enable his appointee to hold the office, and an officer .elected by the people, according to law, to an office the qualification for which is prescribed by law, with .an indefeasible right to the office upon the terms prescribed by law, with no law requiring a bond, and no superior or other person in authority with a discretion to exact a bond, is plain; and in State v. Bartlett, 30 Miss. 624 , such a bond given by a public officer was held to be | 1 | 1880–1880 |
Keer v. Devises of Moon
green
1 sentence1844Hawey v. Richards, 1 Mason, 381 ; 9 Wheaton Rep. 565 ; 3 Rawle Rep. 312 ; Story’s Con. | 1 | 1844–1844 |
Case of Miller's Estate
neutral
1 sentence1844Hawey v. Richards, 1 Mason, 381 ; 9 Wheaton Rep. 565 ; 3 Rawle Rep. 312 ; Story’s Con. | 1 | 1844–1844 |
Harvey v. Richards
green
1 sentence1844Hawey v. Richards, 1 Mason, 381 ; 9 Wheaton Rep. 565 ; 3 Rawle Rep. 312 ; Story’s Con. | 1 | 1844–1844 |
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.