Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fairleighgreen2 sentences1996App. 554 , 732 P.2d 253, 257 (1987)("[F]or the admission of the test result from the use of a particular Intoxilyzer utilized at a specific time, there must be sufficient foundational evidence showing that (1) the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order; (2) its operator was qualified; and (3) the test was properly administered."); State v. Fairleigh, 490 So.2d 490, 497 (La. 1992Ct. App. 1987)("[F]or the admission of the test result from the use of a particular Intoxilyzer utilized at a specific time, there must be sufficient foundational evidence showing that (1) the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order; (2) its operator was qualified; and (3) the test was properly administered."); State v. Fairleigh, 490 So. 2d 490, 497 (La. | 2 | 2 |
Johnston v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Johnston, 567 So.2d at 239 (proof of calibration of an intoxilyzer machine is foundational to the admission of test results). | 1 | 1 |
Burt v. Duckworthgreen2 sentences2009Although we might take Humphreys County’s failure to file a brief as an admission of error, we are not required to do so if we “can say with confidence, after considering the record and brief of appealing party, that there was no error.” State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss.1981) (quoting Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss.1968)). 2009Although we might take Humphreys County's failure to file a brief as an admission of error, we are not required to do so if we "can say with confidence, after considering the record and brief of appealing party, that there was no error." State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss.1981) (quoting Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss. 1968)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maplesgreen2 sentences2009Although we might take Humphreys County’s failure to file a brief as an admission of error, we are not required to do so if we “can say with confidence, after considering the record and brief of appealing party, that there was no error.” State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss.1981) (quoting Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss.1968)). 2009Although we might take Humphreys County's failure to file a brief as an admission of error, we are not required to do so if we "can say with confidence, after considering the record and brief of appealing party, that there was no error." State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350, 353 (Miss.1981) (quoting Burt v. Duckworth, 206 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss. 1968)). | 1 | 1 |
Godsey v. Houstongreen1 sentence2004In Godsey v. Houston, 584 So.2d 389, 393 (Miss.1991), the court found no violation of due process rights where there was evidence of notice and/or waiver of hearing and an admission of violation of post-release supervision. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Souzagreen1 sentence1996App. 554 , 732 P.2d 253, 257 (1987)("[F]or the admission of the test result from the use of a particular Intoxilyzer utilized at a specific time, there must be sufficient foundational evidence showing that (1) the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order; (2) its operator was qualified; and (3) the test was properly administered."); State v. Fairleigh, 490 So.2d 490, 497 (La. | 1 | 1 |
Polk v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Stewart correctly cites this Court's stringent requirements of the admission of DNA test results as stated in Polk v. State, 612 So. 2d 381, 388 (Miss. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stringer v. State
green
2 sentences1996Stringer, 491 So.2d at 837 . 1996Stringer, 491 So.2d at 837 . | 3 | 1995–1996 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1977In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) the United States Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the accused's blood and the admission of the analysis report did not violate self-incrimination rights under the Fifth Amendment. 1977In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) the United States Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of the accused's blood and the admission of the analysis report did not violate self-incrimination rights under the Fifth Amendment. | 2 | 1971–1977 |
Peggy P. McGrew v. Charles Elliot McGrew
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Carreira
green
1 sentence2012As another court that reached the same conclusion has recognized, “[calibration] records lack the presumption of neutrality typical business records enjoy because they are created by law enforcement personnel for law enforcement personnel and therefore may not be prepared with the same objectivity as records created by a third party truly indifferent to the outcomes of criminal prosecutions.” People v. Carreira, 27 Misc.3d 293 , 893 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y.City Ct.2010). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gordon v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.