13 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021The Court further explained that “[t]he terms used to define the scope of the forfeiture rule suggest that the exception applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Id. 2019Indeed, in discussing the common-law forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, the Giles Court recognized that “[t]he terms used to 13 “In interpreting the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, it is appropriate to look to federal law interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance.” Portis v. State, 245 So. 3d 457, 470 (¶31) (Miss. 2018). 19 define the scope of the forfeiture rule suggest that the exception applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Giles, 554 U.S. at 359 (emphasis omitted). ¶48. | 2 | 2 |
Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindlergreen2 sentences2015He argues that a party may not take “a position which is inconsistent with the one previously assumed in the course of the same action or proceeding.” Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindler, 772 So.2d 1036, 1039 (Miss.2000) (quoting Miss. 2014He argues that a party may not take “a position which is inconsistent with the one previously assumed in the course of the same action or proceeding.” Grand Casino Tunica v. Shindler, 772 So. 2d 1036, 1039 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Estate of Vickgreen1 sentence2022The Constitution “jealously safeguard[s] . . . the absolute freedom of a testator to dispose of his own property as he chooses.” Olin v. Richards (In re Est. of Blackburn), 299 So. 3d 781 , 787 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Sullivant v. Vick (In re Est. of Vick), 557 So. 2d 760, 765 (Miss. 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Rickey Portis v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2019Indeed, in discussing the common-law forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, the Giles Court recognized that “[t]he terms used to 13 “In interpreting the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, it is appropriate to look to federal law interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance.” Portis v. State, 245 So. 3d 457, 470 (¶31) (Miss. 2018). 19 define the scope of the forfeiture rule suggest that the exception applied only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” Giles, 554 U.S. at 359 (emphasis omitted). ¶48. | 1 | 1 |
ONE (1) CHARTER ARMS v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Moore, 721 So.2d 620, 624-625 (¶ 19) (Miss.1998): (1) The nexus between the offense and the property and the extent of the property’s role in the offense; (2) The role and culpability of the owner; (3) The possibility of separating the offending property from the remainder; and (4) Whether, after a review of all relevant facts, the forfeiture divests the owner of property which has a value that is grossly disproportionate to *677 the crime or grossly disproportionate to the culpability of the owner. | 1 | 1 |
Stringer v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Blanch's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed under the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and followed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Blue Ridge Coal Co. v. Hurstgreen2 sentences1993Blue Ridge Coal Co. v. Hurst, 196 Ky. 432 , 244 S.W. 892, 893 (1922). 1993Blue Ridge Coal Co. v. Hurst, 196 Ky. 432 , 244 S.W. 892, 893 (1922). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winningham v. Winningham
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Hammonds v. Hammonds
green
1 sentence2016Hammonds, 641 So.2d at 1217 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000Blanch's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed under the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and followed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). 2000Blanch's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed under the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and followed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Board of Supervisors v. Newell
green
2 sentences1980We have also said that "a forfeiture clause in deed conveying land for a public purpose with a provision for reversion is strictly construed and mere non-use is not sufficient evidence of complete abandonment to work a forfeiture." Board of Supervisors of Franklin County v. Newell, 213 Miss. 274 , 56 So.2d 689 (1952). 1980We have also said that "a forfeiture clause in deed conveying land for a public purpose with a provision for reversion is strictly construed and mere non-use is not sufficient evidence of complete abandonment to work a forfeiture." Board of Supervisors of Franklin County v. Newell, 213 Miss. 274 , 56 So.2d 689 (1952). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
McCullough v. Swifton Consolidated School District
green
2 sentences1980In Newell, supra, property had been conveyed to Franklin County, the deed providing that the "land shall revert to the grantor herein, his heirs and assigns when it fails to be used for school purposes." In deciding that no forfeiture had occurred under the facts of that case, this Court stated the general rule: "[I]t is well established that a forfeiture will not be implied unless the evidence to that effect is clear and convincing. *934 19 Am.Jur., Estates, Sec. 65; 4 Thompson, Real Property, Secs. 2044, 2063, 2096; 47 Am.Jur., Schools, Sec. 69." The Court also said: "[Proof of] an abandonme 1980In Newell, supra, property had been conveyed to Franklin County, the deed providing that the "land shall revert to the grantor herein, his heirs and assigns when it fails to be used for school purposes." In deciding that no forfeiture had occurred under the facts of that case, this Court stated the general rule: "[I]t is well established that a forfeiture will not be implied unless the evidence to that effect is clear and convincing. *934 19 Am.Jur., Estates, Sec. 65; 4 Thompson, Real Property, Secs. 2044, 2063, 2096; 47 Am.Jur., Schools, Sec. 69." The Court also said: "[Proof of] an abandonme | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Merchants Ins. v. Lilgeomont, Inc.
green
2 sentences1974In Merchants Insurance Co. v. Lilgeomont, Inc., 84 F.2d 685 (5th Cir.1936), where the forfeiture clause was the same as in the instant case, the Court held: "Insured corporation's president, repairing her refusals to answer questions on examination by insurer to extent of her ability when testifying in preliminary trial on pleas in abatement of actions on fire policies, held properly permitted to explain that she refused to answer because she did not know or remember facts inquired about or believed them immaterial." 84 F.2d at 685 , Headnote No. 4. 1974In Merchants Insurance Co. v. Lilgeomont, Inc., 84 F.2d 685 (5th Cir.1936), where the forfeiture clause was the same as in the instant case, the Court held: "Insured corporation's president, repairing her refusals to answer questions on examination by insurer to extent of her ability when testifying in preliminary trial on pleas in abatement of actions on fire policies, held properly permitted to explain that she refused to answer because she did not know or remember facts inquired about or believed them immaterial." 84 F.2d at 685 , Headnote No. 4. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Gravette v. Golden Saw Mill Trust
green
1 sentence1965“We think the contract exhibited to the bill was the exponent of their own terms, and that it was not proper to grant the relief prayed for, or any relief; and, consequently, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause dismissed. ...” ( 169 Miss. at 864 , 154 So. at 274 ) We are of the opinion, therefore, that since the lease contract did not contain a forfeiture clause for failure to pay rent on a certain day — and since the appellees received all the rent due them and punitive damages could not be awarded in an equity court — appellees could not maintain an action to cance | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Louisiana Oil Corp. v. Frye
neutral
1 sentence1965“We think the contract exhibited to the bill was the exponent of their own terms, and that it was not proper to grant the relief prayed for, or any relief; and, consequently, the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause dismissed. ...” ( 169 Miss. at 864 , 154 So. at 274 ) We are of the opinion, therefore, that since the lease contract did not contain a forfeiture clause for failure to pay rent on a certain day — and since the appellees received all the rent due them and punitive damages could not be awarded in an equity court — appellees could not maintain an action to cance | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. Neighbors
green
1 sentence1911This rule applies, even though the land is expressly conditioned to revert upon breach or nonperformance of the condition; but we dissent from the statement copied from the opinion in Railroad Company v. Neighbors, 51 Miss. 412 , that “the election to insist upon a forfeiture or a waiver of it must be made promptly after the breach or knowledge thereof.” The court in the Neighbors case was discussing the rights of a plaintiff to have the contract annulled or set aside by a court of equity, and the facts in that case show that the grantor in his lifetime made no complaint, nor did his heirs aft | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.