97 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bush v. Statered2 sentences2012STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5. “[A] motion for a JNOV challenge[s] the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Wells v. State, 57 So.3d 40, 45 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss.2005)). 2012STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5. “[A] motion for a JNOV challenge[s] the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Wells v. State, 57 So.3d 40, 45 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss.2005)). | 17 | 19 |
McClain v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Hughery, 799 So.2d at 117-18 (¶ 17) (citing McClain v. State, 625 So.2d at 778). 2008McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). | 15 | 17 |
Noe v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 302 (Miss.1993). 1999Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 302 (Miss.1993). | 9 | 9 |
Carr v. Stategreen2 sentences2005In the recent case of Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (Miss.2005), we discussed the standard which applies in a challenge, via a JNOV motion, to a verdict based on the sufficiency of the evidence: In Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 889 (Miss.1968), we stated that in considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows `beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every 2003In the recent case of Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 , 843 9 (Miss. 2005), we discussed the standard which applies in a challenge, via a JNOV motion, to a verdict based on the sufficiency of the evidence: In Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968), we stated that in considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances tha | 4 | 4 |
Boose v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Boose v. State, 851 So.2d 391, 394 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). 2007Boose v. State, 851 So.2d 391, 394 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). | 4 | 4 |
Kingston v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Kingston v. State, 846 So.2d 1023, 1025 (Miss.2003). ¶ 18. 2001Kingston v. State, 846 So. 2d 1023, 1025 (Miss. 2003). ¶17. | 3 | 3 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Wayne asserts that the trial court erred in denying his JNOV motion because, according to Wayne, “[t]here is no way from the presented evidence and testimony that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Wayne committed deliberate[-]design murder, and did not act in self-defense.” We review de novo the denial of a JNOV motion “because [it is a] challenge [to] the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Brooks v. State, 203 So. 3d 1134, 1137 (¶11) (Miss. 2016). ¶32. 2018Wilson asserts that the court erred when it denied his JNOV motion because there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the burglary convictions for the Patrick and Lingo camp houses.21 The denial of a JNOV motion is reviewed de novo “because [it is a] challenge [to] the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” Brooks v. State, 203 So. 3d 1134, 1137 (¶11) (Miss. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Croft v. Stategreen2 sentences2019A JNOV motion challenges the “legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.” Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222, 1235 (¶48) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Croft v. State, 992 So. 2d 1151, 1157 (¶24) (Miss. 2008)). ¶12. 2012“In a criminal proceeding, motions for a directed verdict and a JNOV challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.” Bas-kin v. State, 39 So.3d 959, 962 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Croft v. State, 992 So.2d 1151, 1157 (¶ 24) (Miss.2008)). | 2 | 2 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Butler v. State, 544 So.2d 816, 819 (Miss.1989). 1995Butler v. State, 544 So. 2d 816, 819 (Miss. 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Shirley Warren v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2018"On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers the trial court's ruling at the last time the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged." Warren , 187 So.3d at 627 (¶ 29). 2018"On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court considers the trial court's ruling at the last time the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged." Warren v. State , 187 So.3d 616 , 627 (¶ 29) (Miss. 2016). | 1 | 2 |
Walter Dewayne Sanford v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2026Sanford v. State, 247 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (¶10) (Miss. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Fulks v. Stategreen1 sentence2026In Fulks v. State, 944 So. 2d 79, 85 (¶14) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Strong v. Nicholsongreen1 sentence2024Substantial evidence is “evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.” Condere Corp. v. Moon, 880 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (¶12) (Miss. 2004) 3 On appeal, Weaver only argues against the weight of the evidence, and Ross only responds about the sufficiency of the evidence; therefore, we shall discuss both. 9 (quoting Strong v. Nicholson, 580 So. 2d 1288, 1292 (Miss. 1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Condere Corp. v. Moongreen1 sentence2024Substantial evidence is “evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.” Condere Corp. v. Moon, 880 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (¶12) (Miss. 2004) 3 On appeal, Weaver only argues against the weight of the evidence, and Ross only responds about the sufficiency of the evidence; therefore, we shall discuss both. 9 (quoting Strong v. Nicholson, 580 So. 2d 1288, 1292 (Miss. 1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Gary v. Stategreen1 sentence2023And West’s motion for a directed verdict and peremptory jury instruction generally mentioned “that the crimes charged . . . have not been proven.” It is true that “[a] motion for a JNOV in which the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged must be specific.” Gary v. State, 11 So. 3d 769, 771 (¶8) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Xavier Collins Johnson v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2022“In applying de novo review, we determine ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Body v. State, 318 So. 3d 1104 , 1108 (¶11) (Miss. 2021) (quoting Johnson v. State, 235 So. 3d 1404, 1410 (¶12) (Miss. 2017)). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. State, 154 So. 3d 42, 50 (¶20) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Stanley Ross Strickland v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2021Strickland v. State, 215 So. 3d 514, 516 (Miss. 2021Strickland v. State, 215 So. 3d 514, 516 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Knight v. State, 72 So. 3d 1056, 1063 (Miss. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Daniels v. State, 107 So. 3d 961, 963 (¶12) (Miss. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Lawsongreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Cooper v. Lawson, 264 So. 2d 890, 891 (Miss. 1972) (“[B]efore a litigant can avail himself of the contention the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it is essential that the contention be embodied in a motion for a new trial in the lower court and be passed upon by the trial judge. | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Stategreen1 sentence2019A JNOV motion challenges the “legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.” Parker v. State, 30 So. 3d 1222, 1235 (¶48) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Croft v. State, 992 So. 2d 1151, 1157 (¶24) (Miss. 2008)). ¶12. | 1 | 1 |
Dilworth v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Dilworth v. State, 909 So. 2d 731, 737 (¶20) (Miss. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Jenkins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'Anzor Jackson v. State of Mississippigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gillett v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Griffin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stringer v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heidelberg v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sims v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ivy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lewis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| AMFED COMPANIES, LLC v. Jordangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Baileygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baskin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Stewmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Poole Ex Rel. Poole v. Avara
green
2 sentences2007Thus, to determine whether this standard was met, following denial of the JNOV motion, this Court must view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[,]" Poole, 908 So.2d at 726 , and it must be determined if "reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment might reach different conclusions[,]" id., as to that evidence. ¶ 37. 2007Thus, to determine whether this standard was met, following denial of the JNOV motion, this Court must view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[,]" Poole, 908 So.2d at 726 , and it must be determined if "reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment might reach different conclusions[,]" id., as to that evidence. ¶ 37. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 2005Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Day v. Morrison
green
2 sentences2003Bickham argued that the trial court erred in denying the JNOV motion and in giving Instruction C-20 as it is a subjective instruction and is in conflict with this Court's holding in Day v. Morrison, 657 So.2d 808 (Miss.1995). 1997Bickham argued that the trial court erred in denying the JNOV motion and in giving Instruction C-20 as it is a subjective instruction and is in conflict with this Court's holding in Day v. Morrison, 657 So.2d 808 (Miss. 1995). | 2 | 1997–2003 |
Junior Food Stores, Inc. v. Rice
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 76 . 1998Id. at 76 . | 2 | 1998–2001 |
InTown Lessee Associates, LLC v. Howard
green
1 sentence2024The appellate court “will affirm the denial of a JNOV motion if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Materials Transp. Co. v. Newman
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 1203 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Brooks v. Pennington
green
2 sentences2019Smith relies on Brooks v. Pennington, 995 So. 2d 733 (Miss. 2019Smith relies on Brooks v. Pennington , 995 So.2d 733 (Miss. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Shipp v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Edwards v. Roberts green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Kirk v. Koch green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Maxwell v. Illinois Central Gulf RR green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Bingham v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Fisher v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| McFee v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Veal v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.